Coaches' timeouts are worse. Basketball teams should get one, full stop.
- Member for
- 3 years 39 weeks
|42 weeks 5 days ago||possible job opportunity at UM||
There's an opening for an Applications Programmer/Analyst http://umjobs.org/job_detail/80392/applications_programmeranalyst at the UM Office of Development that would match your skillset nicely. If you're interested, submit an application soon-- the position has been open for a few weeks already.
I work in OUD at UM so I can give you more specifics if you'd like. My email address is my mgoblog username at gmail.com.
|3 years 7 weeks ago||+1000 if I could||
You've hit the nail right on the head. This rebuilding process is going to be long and slow, but it is happening. Despite the growing pains, I'm proud to say it's happening with a class act of a coach.
If we keep burning through coaches, the cycle of attrition that has left us with a team full of underclassmen is only going to continue.
The comparisons to RichRod aren't entirely accurate, either, since RichRod didn't take the helm with looming sanctions and following two prior failed coaching transplants.
As painful as watching the Northwestern game was last night, I have every bit of confidence that Beilein will turn things around. It's not going to come quickly or easily, though.
|3 years 7 weeks ago||clarification||
Just out of curiosity, can you clarifiy one point: in order to grade the quality of each of the positions for each season, did you use the prior season's statistics, or the end-of-year statistics? For instance, to predict the 2001 season's wins, did you use subjective ratings of the players from the beginning (using 2000's data) or the end of the season (using 2001's data)? Not trying to be a stats snob; just trying to figure out what the model is actually explaining.
|3 years 7 weeks ago||agreed||
I was going to post some very similar comments, but this sums it up better than I could have.
Some other thoughts from a stats nerd:
Was a regression model (or something similar) used to model the subjective ratings vs the actual win/loss totals? If so, then the accuracy of the model (being off by only a game each season, on average) isn't that impressive; any good model should be fairly close used retrospectively unless there is a lot of unexplained variance. Perhaps that is an interesting conclusion in itself.
If regression was used, it would be interesting to compare the estimated coefficients for each of the positions. For instance: is a +1 for QB worth more than a +1 for WR? It might also be worth investigating whether moving from -1 to 0 is worth more than moving from 0 to +1.
Since you presumably assigned ratings retrospectively for the early seasons, I wonder how much your subjective ratings were affected by the win/loss total at the end of the season.
|3 years 7 weeks ago||red circle||
It looks like the circle is there to indicate where someone thinks she was photoshopped to look thinner. I'm guessing the picture came from a photoshop "fail" blog.
|3 years 17 weeks ago||fair point||
Fair point. I can somewhat understand your response if you take losing the last few games as being a sign that RR has lost control of his program ala John L Smith or Bobby Williams.
My comment was directed more toward the people who week-in, week-out seem to suggest that each game is the "make or break" game for RR, as if he's not trying to win each and every game to the best of his ability.
My point was that rather than looking at his record in a few games that just happen to fall at the end of the season, one should evaluate RR based on whether his system is going to win games (and hopefully national titles) for us down the road. Personally, I look at whether I believe his system is going to be succesful in the B10, and whether he's getting the players he needs for the system to work.
(OT: Apologies if this wasn't stated clearly before-- it looks like I may have been downvoted once the diary made the front page.)
|3 years 17 weeks ago||MSU coaching prestige||
I agree 100%. The Izzo situation this past summer showed that the MSU AD knows how to manage these situations, and the fanbase has done well to circle the wagons when the rumors start to fly. From the coaches' perspectives, it probably helps that Izzo and Dantonio are treated as gods due to their recent success versus UM. I can't imagine that MSU is going to be a stepping stone for the Sabans of the world any longer, at least not in the near future. Even though I tend to think that this year's MSU football record is a bit of an outlier, it seems that their athletic department as a whole has risen due to the success of the basketball team, and it's hard to a coach wanting to jump ship when the ceiling hasn't been reached yet.
|3 years 18 weeks ago||Let's wait until after the season to decide?||
For the 41% who voted "let's wait until after the season to decide", I'm curious as to why this choice was so popular.
Isn't Coach Rodriguez the same guy regardless of whether we're 5-7 or 7-5?
That said, if people chose this option because of wanting to avoid distractions mid-season, I understand. But it's my hunch that people who chose this option are taking a wait-and-see approach, and I'm genuinely curious how a couple of wins either way could change someone's mind on the guy.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||championships post-1950?||
While it's clear that UM has been more consistent over time, when it comes to winning it all, it seems the two teams are closer than I would like. I sometimes hear MSU fans ask what we've done post-1950. Sadly, they may have a point.
Football: MSU 3 (1952, 1955, 1966) to UM 1 (1997)
Basketball: MSU 2 (1979, 2000) to UM 1 (1989)
Hockey: UM 8 (1951, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1964, 1996, 1998) to MSU 3 (1966, 1986, 2007) (in the past 25 years, it's 2 vs. 2).
It's a shame with our success year-in and year-out that we weren't able to hang a few more banners along the way.