“On the offense last year, they had great spacing. That’s what I remember. Great spacing, great shooters, like Nik Stauskas, who’s not there right now. But they always have someone to fill the roles. They have a cutting offense, kind of hard to guard.”
- Member for
- 5 years 4 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|18 hours 30 min ago||I think that would hardly be guaranteed||
...unless he continued cheating.
|18 hours 57 min ago||But IMO, Dantonio must have known||
about Ohio's shenanigans when he was an assistant under Tressel. A lot of evidence suggested that many NCAA violations were going on during those years, even though the NCAA (with Gene Smith on the infractions committee) did not adequately investigate them.
|19 hours 4 min ago||past big upsets by UM--a gauge of what it will take this week?||
I realize that being on the road vs. MSU increases the challenge immensely. However, the oddsmakers, in making MSU a 15.5 point favorite, presumably have assessed the degree of difficulty. So, that made me wonder: what other games has UM won when the spread against. UM was that large?
I thought of the 1969 game vs. Ohio, when UM was a 17 point underdog. In that game, of course, UM had Bo as a coach, was better, and had more to gain---ie a Rose Bowl bid (which now is as likely as an asteroid destroying East Lansing by Saturday). On the other hand, Ohio then also was far better than MSU today (a clear #1 in the polls--some even claimed it was the best team ever).
Regardless, UM won 24-12 and prevented an otherwise certain national title for Ohio. What did it take to accomplish this feat? While UM had no turnovers, Ohio had seven (including 6 interceptions and a fumble). When the UM players hoisted Bo on their shoulders, they did drop him once. But Bo said that was their only fumble all day.
|21 hours 50 min ago||Asking the Q about Denard's NFL RB value||
made me think about his past value as a QB to UM. To show why we have missed a healthy Denard so much in the past 2-3 years, I calculated a corrected* win pct for UM, for the games in which he was the main UM QB.* For 2012, I made a correction in the win pct to account for his lack of full health due to the ulnar nerve injury that severely affected his throwing. There was a correlation of .97 between UM's win % and his playing status/experience from year to year (and a correlation of about .9 without a health correction for his games as the QB in 2012).**
*The games with no denard as QB (defined according to whether he played QB in >50% of the game) include all in 2009 and the last 6 games of 2012. For the first 7 games of 2012, I have made a correction for the win pct (labelled HlthyW%) by dividing the actual win pct by .8 (under the assumption that he was at 80% of full health).
**The correlation was essentially the same using a more realistic log odds model (rather than linear model of the win pct itself).
|1 day 18 hours ago||I cited Heisman's Brown affiliation as a player, not a coach||
But even in his coaching career, I did not find a level of excess worthy of your level of condemnation (though I recognize that, being in the field of finance, you must balk at excesses).
Indeed, Heisman’s average career margin of victory was 9.3. Granted, he did once get terribly pissed off when Cumberland’s baseball team thoroughly embarrassed the GaTech baseball team he coached by a 22-0 score. He later found out that they did so by suiting up a professional team in Cumberland uniforms. Cumberland knew they had to play a pissed-off powerhouse GaTech FB team the next year. So what did this honorable school do? They decided to back out on their contract and discontinue their FB team.
Heisman gave them a choice: either accept their punishment for $500 and an all-expense paid trip to Atlanta or pay them $3000 for the missing gate receipts. They accepted.
Ga Tech then---with real student athletes, not pros dressed up as college kids---delivered to Cumberland a response roughly proportional to what the Ga Tech BB team got from them: a 22-0 loss.. But since football scores tend to run about 10x more than BB scores, Heisman ran up the score against Cumberland’s FB team by a factor of 10 (222-0). Granted, that may have been two points too much; and it did make Cumberland look worse than they really were. . The week before, powerhouse Sewanee could only squeak out a narrow 107-0 win vs. the same Cumberland team. Nevertheless, Heisman had reminded the national media of Cumberland’s past antics. Finally, the national media—or what there was of it in 1916--also stopped ignoring his FB team. Unfortunately, it also made Cumberland famous and enabled them to revive their own program.
|2 days 19 hours ago||You'd think that the editor of this magazine, of all people,||
would be careful about labelling people as “douches”
The editor of this magazine, Jim Nelson, went to ND and lives with his partner,
The most famous “John” from GQ's “douchiest” school, Brown, was:
John Heisman: after whom the “Heisman” trophy is named.
I guess that “douchiness”—like beauty-- is in the eye of the beholder.
|3 days 23 hours ago||Magnus: there's a fairly important typo in the picture caption||
("her" rather than "here" in parentheses)
|4 days 19 hours ago||I would be curious to know how you got your 25% bowl probability||
To me, it seems much more realistic than the 17% chance reported in SB nation which in part used the Massey ratings. I wonder if you just used different polls or if you considered other factors, such as the lack of independence in game outcomes apparently assumed by SBNation. In any case, I think that the chances of UM going to a bowl will be higher if one considers a likely correlation between the outcomes of successive games.
Even if momentum in an increasingly optimistic or pessimistic team were not a reason for correlated results--which has been subject to debate-- there are other reasons to expect correlations. For example, if a key player is injured after 3 of the next six games, then the team is not likely to succeed as often as expected, based on results from the prior games. Conversely, if a key player comes back from injury after 3 games, the chances of winning will be better than they otherwise would have been.
At first glance, the effects of such correlations might seem to neutralize one another when the outcomes are symmetrical ie considering whether UM will make a bowl--ie win (0 to 3) of 6 games or (4 to 6) of 6.. But correlations will not affect the chances of win or losses eqally, depending on how great a favorite or underdog UM is. They will give a greater bump up in the chances of beating Ohio, if correlations exist and we won the previous game. The reason is that there is a lot of room to improve (ie a low win probability of 17% in theory has a potential improvement of up to 83%).* . By contrast, if we lost the game prior to Indiana ( MSU), the correlation with Indiana game outcome will not have as great a potential effect. If we are favored to win 54% of the time vs Indiana, then the chances of another loss can fall by only 46% at most.*
*In a simple two game scenario, the degree of improvment (or deterioraton) in the chances of a duplicate outcome will vary linearly with the correlation.
|4 days 23 hours ago||Maybe the regents should ask for an anonymous poll||
of the same coaches.
It might turn out the same, since many head coaches would worry about losing their jobs under a new AD. Perhaps a more revealing strategy would be to have employees across the department, not just the HCs, rate DB on a number of leadership qualities and performance measures---perhaps comparing him to prior AD's they worked under. One could also include in this anonymous questionnaire the people who worked with DB on various projects and committees---like the Regents themselves.
|5 days 24 min ago||Great metaphor!||
"Coleman is essentially Sisyphus, only with better vision and lateral quickness."
|6 days 18 hours ago||ad candidates||
Although totally unfamiliar with the GVSU guy, he does seem to have a good resume at a lower level.
I don't know a lot about Bates, except that the FB team has improved in his 2.5 years at BC (beat NCState and USC this year). The mens BB team has gone downhill. I am not sure how much credit or blame he gets for either. But he was at Miami of Ohio a while and did play for Bo at UM. He has a doctoral degree and actually teaches (sports administration). I assume with the latter teaching, he must have some exposure to the marketing side of things. But (gulp) one of his sponsors is Coke.
I know far less about Manuel, but the UConn FB program is in shambles. True, they almost beat UM at home last year. I went to that game and was impressed by the nice, seemingly new FB stadium. On the other hand, the UConn staff piped in really obnoxious artificial noise to supplant the crowd on every UM 3rd down attempt. It was really cheezy and seemed like an admission that they have trouble generating their own cheers. So, I would have some concerns about a repeat of Brandon's gimmickry. This, of course, may be way off target and is based on a very superficial first impression.
|6 days 20 hours ago||Why the choice was wrong||
I can only scratch my head if, as the OP suggests, Hoke was just trying to foul up the opposition by preventing them from doing what they wanted. That would betray an extremely shallow strategy that ignores what was important here---the relative chances of different outcomes—i.e., the greater chance of a simple event (an offensive completion in a ball thrown to the end zone) vs. a complex event requiring multiple things to happen (e.g., , a defensive interception AND a 100 yard run back or a fumble AND a defensive recovery AND a 50 yard fumble return for a TD).*
Certainly, when we are not dealing with a well-defined end-of-half or end-of-game situation, it can make sense to trick the opponent: to surprise him or lure him into doing something outside his comfort zone. But this was the end of a half, and it was not a matter of trying to trick the opponent in making a poor choice. Once Hoke called a TO, PSU had to run a play, and with 3 sec, it would have been nonsensical to punt. Indeed, all Hoke did here was to trick the opposing coach into a choice he should have made in the first place.
*If you want to complicate things further, you could try to gauge the chances of hitting, shaking up or injuring the PSU QB on the last play of the half, but that assumes you are OK with making bad choices in order to physically harm the opponent, that you know you will get the the QB, that it will materially affect the game, and that one of your own players is not injured on the same play. We could complicate the situation even further, but there's little hope of judging the likeliness and net impact of all the possible events. They are not likely to form the basis of a sound decision.
|6 days 20 hours ago||Agreed....and Hoke's ESPN critics weren't much sharper||
While the ESPN announcer, Rod Gilmore, had just finished regurgitating canned remarks about how bad a coach Hoke was, he and the other announcer were hilarious. They took forever hemming and hawing about whether it was a good or bad call--so long that the announcers, were they coaches, would have had to call a time out to decide.
|1 week 1 day ago||ESPN sure has been giving UM a lot of biased announcers||
I don't know who is responsible for these assignments. I had heard that the director of sportscenter was an Ohio alum.
|1 week 1 day ago||I do not know is Mullen would be our #1 candidate||
but he might not at all be an unrealistic one. Mullen and his wife are both from PA (his wife, north of the Pittsburgh area and closer to AA). They met when he was coach of Bowling Green and she was working in Toledo as a TV sports commentator (the Golf Channel) . When they went to Missiissipi State, they had an infant child. I am not sure how many kids they have now, but if they are concerned about good schools for their kids, as well as being closer to family, UM would have a distinct advantage. I think that Mullen also has some roots in New Hampshire; which is culturally a far cry from Mississippi.
If he came to UM, the media would have a field day. UM would have the former assistant of the current Ohio head coach. Refresh my memory: when was the last time that happened?.
|1 week 1 day ago||He boycotted the game||
|1 week 3 days ago||exclamation points also are a device used to||
make math look exciting.
|1 week 3 days ago||Next||
I would like to see him at a niners game talking with the coach.
|1 week 4 days ago||Angelique: why going from one opposite to another was not good||
Read what Angelique said in her chat (to Fred) –
“I said the day RR was hired the program would be set back 10 years. Not because I didn't think RR couldn't run a winning offense, but because I didn't think the spread would be successful and then the next coach would prob try to restore what Michigan was...”
|1 week 4 days ago||I think your own narrative--like mine--is a mixed bag||
You are right that my own portrayal of some events is overly simplifiied and Mo was not a good example, since he was hand picked. Also, perhaps Carr was just chosen because he was around. Still, I can't help wondering if if he was selected over others in the program, in part, because he seemed to be more stable than his predecessor, Moeller, and less likely to embarass the school.
To the extent that your criticisms are correct through the Carr era, however, they further support for my main argument. We may have been more successful in those years, in part, because we did not do an abrubt about face during transitions but rather maintained some continuity. We did not blow up the program every few years.
As for the specifics of what has happened over the years after Carr, my view differs from yours. True, we may have sought Schiano, whose style of play was much closer to Carr. But even Schiano was very different in personality from Carr---he was brash, demanding and very difficult to get a long with. Also, not every job "offer" is really an offer. Do we really know how strongly Schiano was pursued or how good or binding any offer was or whether he faced strong opposition? During this search there were still loud calls for a major "change" from what some saw as an "anachronistic" coaching style. People pointed to the way that mobile QBs and a more wide open offense had burned us. For whatever reasons--and despite unverified speculations about Lloyd Carr's role--those voices eventually got their way--the choice of RR and a major overhall in the program. But clearly, this overhaul was not about to be implemented as easily as the voices for "change" had believed. RR noted just yesterday that people in the department were working against the program from the day he arrived. So, the UM program went into a tailspin of historic proportions, from which it has still not fully recovered. Why? One reason is that UM made yet another abrupt turn in selecting another opposite type of coach. The players that remained now were quite young and had to learn yet another unfamiliar system.
|1 week 4 days ago||Reasons why Schlissel could go for a new AD (& maybe Harbaugh?)||
Remember that Schlissel, not Ross, is Brandon's boss. So we should be asking: what does Schlissel want? Consider two factors.
1. Schlissel, who was at Berkeley, and Harbaugh who was at nearby Stanford, may share academic values. Granted, Harbaugh's comments about academics may still alienate many UM alums--I myself did not like them one bit. But they may also reflect a vision that Schlissel and Harbaugh share about the ideal balance between athletics and academics.
2. While the personalities of Schlissel and Harbaugh seem to differ, and while Schlissel may not want a dominant football coach, he does seem like a pragmatic guy. Since college presidents have a notroiously high risk of a short tenure, Schissel's may want to firmly cement his his position and legacy. So ask youself: Would he more likely accomplish that
(1) by cow-towing to Ross and keeping Brandon--over the objections of many Regents--who can hire or fire a president? Also, what if keeping Brandon would prevent a willing Harbaugh from coming to UM? That would not look so good.
or (2) by getting rid of Brandon in favor of an AD that Harbaugh favors, then winning a competition for Harbaugh? Pie in the sky? Maybe. But that would be quite a feather in Schlissel's mortarboard cap. And it would seem perfectly consistent with his emphasis on academic values.
Granted, the latter may be a longshot; and these are only two of many possibiities. But I have doubts that UM would net more alumni contributions by following Ross' preferences for DB. Ross may already think he's given UM enough, and a lot of other alienated alumni might be less willing to make contributions if DB were retained.
|1 week 4 days ago||Yes, exactly||
That would mean that what he now tells the court that he lied about--seeing the video--was really the truth--and that he is lying to the courts now. This thing could really blow up. If true, it would be more than perjury. It would be an effort to destroy evidence.
That would be almost unbelievably stupid. Maybe it is not true. Or maybe the player allegedly told to delete the video is himself making misleading statements or commiting perjury. But in any case, the whole video lays bare Franklin's breathtaking mendacity. He says he did not see the video. He confirms that he told players he did see it. The questioner says, "so you lied". Then Frankling says no. He lies about the obvious, admitted lie just exposed. Now we learn that the lie --that he saw the video--may actually have been the truth; and he may also be lying about lying.
I wonder if this great recruiting class he is assembling will give second thought as to whether they can trust his promises.
|1 week 4 days ago||Other devices also include||
Helmet radio technologies, which can encrypt messages between coaches and players. These will undoubltedly will be the subject of regulations, so as not to give any one team too much advantage. However, other technologies are now in wispread use. Pro teams are using iPads as official playbooks and as instruction devices. ..Players can make notes about plays directly into the program and even choose video links for more research. Using iPads..makes it more likely players will invest in watching the instructional clips. The iPads also serve as a way to stay connected. The Ravens, for example, use it to post strength and conditioning updates, sync practice schedules and meeting calendars, and share team correspondence.”
The problem is that the technology can be both a boon and a challenge to the “old school” coaches, including some of the most successful ones in NFL history…even those who have been “leaders” in the use of sideline technologies for taping opponents’ signals (lol), like NE Pats coach, Bill Belichick. He said that technological advancements have radically changed his teaching methods over the years…Belichick admitted however that he is "overwhelmed” by the advancements in technology." ..and absolutely needs “somebody holding my hand."
But I hope any new UM AD and coach are forward-looking enough to provide UM coaches with at least some of the help Belichick gets. And I hope the coaching staff is willing to use it.
|1 week 4 days ago||You make an excellent point||
Although I was arguing against blind knee-jerk tendencies to choose an opposite type of leader, the choice of a modern leader, well versed in the new technology of sports would not necessarily lead to massive turnover in the players or the loss of recruits. Also,, technnology is about to revolutionize football. We talk a lot on this site about the use of sabermetrics. That is very important but there is so much more. Technology is starting already to revolutionize football.
Soon, “NFL players will be using a new digital photo system that could eventually replace the league's decades-old method of studying opponents from the sidelines….For years, teams have used printed photographs to learn how their opponents lined up before the ball was snapped. The photos are organized in three-ring binders for players to study between offensive or defensive series. But while printed black-and-whites take 20 to 30 seconds to get to the field, the new digital Sideline Viewing System can transmit color pictures to the tablets in four to five seconds…players can enlarge the photo, compare up to four images on one screen, and use a stylus to draw passing routes or highlight missed blocking assignments. Players and coaches can also bookmark plays to refer to them later in the game.
When the regular season starts, Microsoft's Xbox Live network will offer services that include video feeds of game highlights.…. The referees and players will also wear chips in their clothing to track their locations on the field… Radio-frequency identification, or RFID, transmitters in the shoulder pads of players will enable us to know, “has Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski lost a step since his knee injury? Does Darrelle Revis really cover opposing wide receivers tighter than any other defensive back? .Some NFL teams already use GPS chips in practice, to monitor workloads for players returning from injuries.
|1 week 4 days ago||Using the word "lush" was not fair.||
I have changed the wording. But you seem to agree with the post's main point: that we've had knee-jerk reactions when we become disillusioned with one coach, and then choose someone very different.
Regarding the specifics of what happened to Mo, I have not been deaf to the incendiary rumors about the role of Les Miles. But most of us do not really know for sure why Mo blew up that night.
I'm not sure that the reason would matter when a decision was made about whether he could have continued coaching UM. Many parents do not want to send their kids to learn from somebody they suspect as having an alcohol problem. In fact, even if he had a problem and went to a 12-step program, the stigma would remain.
Is that fair? No, it is not. I was sick when we lost Mo. I really liked him as a person and as a coach. Also, he later acquitted himself just fine in the pros. But he never again coached college ball after that drunken disorderly conduct incident. Maybe he was just sick of coaching with narrow-minded colleagues in college. But maybe his image had been too badly damaged to get a top collegiate job.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||You can't remove brand'n.||
According to a Texas rancher: "Tryin’ ta burn it off the cow will land ya in the big house for rustlin'."
|2 weeks 3 days ago||This is a very poor analysis leaving many unanswered questions||
I do not buy their explanation for not giving different weights to different years of seniority. The authors said they did that because some of the class members would no longer be around when they are seniors. True, but if these members are not around and you still include them in the recruiting rankings--which they did--- then teams with coaching changes and high attrition will almost surely underperform these spurious rankings of the the class.
I do not have time to correct for such attrition, but I did at least redo the analysis with different weights different to given years (more weight proportionately given to a recruiting class in predicting performance four years later, less given to it in predicting immediate performance).
One can divide the teams into better or worse than average performance teams.
Consider first only the group of above average BCS performers. Four teams clearly separated themselves out as underperforming their recruit rankings: Tenn again was an outlier and by far the worst; and the next worst group included Miss, Mia, and Fla. The next group did include UM as well as Tex, USC, Auburn, WVa, Pitt, UCLA, NC, Ark.
Among the lower than average BCS performers, there were 19 teams worse than UM. So UM was not among the ten worst teams or even among the worst 25 (it was about #32)
You might attribute these teams' underperformance to poor player development, but there were a lot of coaching changes in the underperformers. Plenty of player attrition also occurred during the transitions. eg Fla had enormous attrition in the early transition between coaching regimes at least thru the 2013 class, which was #3 or #4 nationally in Rivals. Since they did not possess many of the recruits initially ranked so highly, one would expect them not to do as well as might be otherwise expected from the rankings of the (absent) recruits.
What makes UM diff from some of underperformers, like Fla, however, is that it largely retained and even strengthened the 2013 class (especially if you consider Ty Isaac, the #1 Rivals RB as a redshirted member of that class). In fact, UM was either #2 or #3 in the nation—better than Urban’s best class at Ohio-- if you redo the Rivals rankings based on the former recruits who are still around.
If there is again a coaching change again at UM, however, it would be critical to get the new guy in right away to prevent attrition. I wonder if this might be an argument for Schiano. I know that the Pats coach thought very highly of him and drafted an inordinate number of his players from Rutgers. His is immediately available and some think this week’s game at Rutgers could facilitate his recruitment.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||test|
|3 weeks 16 hours ago||If there is a change||
we need to get it right this time.
|3 weeks 16 hours ago||Conflicts of interest||
Conflict 1. If one of UM's biggest donors, Ross, wants Jim Harbaugh, then he may have a lot of financial leverage over the school. He could make it tough for UM to try to compete for Harbaugh. UM would be well advised to appeal to Ross as a UM alum, who obviously is concerned with the school's welfare.
Conflict 2. By verbally supporting Brandon now, Ross also makes it unlikely that Brandon would try to steal Harbaugh from him. Brandon now may have an immense conflict of interest. That conflict would be less for a new AD.
Conflict 3 (possible) If UM does at least try to get Harbaugh, UM would probably be well-advised to avoid future conflict between Harbaugh and a new AD. Harbaugh is not the easiest guy to boss around. So UM should consult Harbaugh about possible new bosses (ADs) that he could live with. I don't know much about the candidates, but I do live in the northeast. My impression is that the AD from BC has had a lot of success; the one from UConn.....not so much.