no, YOU'RE off topic
- Member for
- 6 years 9 weeks
|4 weeks 3 days ago||"But haven't we seen the past||
"But haven't we seen the past decade or so that the recruiting rankings don't seem to mean much at Michigan? "
This isn't the conclusion I would draw. Guys who study this stuff consistently find that recruiting rankings DO matter. Of course there are plenty of examples of busts and over-achievers, but on average, higher ranked recruits perform better than lower ranked recruits. See Matt Hinton's annual column on the topic for convincing evidence from every conceivable angle.
So why doesn't it seem to matter at Michigan? What would explain our recruits consistently under-performing? Poor coaching is the most popular explanation, and for good reason I'd say. It's a constant for all the players. It's easy to imagine that poor development in practice and inferior schemes negated Michigan's talent advantage. It's not the only possible explanation, but it seems to fit the evidence quite well.
Look at it another way: imagine how poorly Brady Hoke would have done if he didn't have bigger, faster, and stronger players than his opponents.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||" If Brady Hoke had gone 5-7||
" If Brady Hoke had gone 5-7 in his first year with a new offense, is it plausible that the 2014 version would have looked much better? "
Not really. Looking at the whole of Hoke's tenure, I don't see a plan halfway completed. I see the lack of a good plan. His teams got worse each year and looked, from beginning to end, confused and goofy.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||Great game, had a string of||
Great game, had a string of questionable calls go against us at the end.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||Vincent Smith sounds like a||
Vincent Smith sounds like a well-meaning guy, but his explanation of Muggles doesn't make much sense. He's basically saying it doesn't mean anything at all. Seems like it means exactly what it sounds like, and what it means in the book: athletes are special and everyone else isn't. Now if things weren't already so strained I doubt people would be so worked up about a Harry Potter reference, but it isn't just some sort of misunderstanding. Mealer and others meant to be dismissive and people are pissed about it.
|13 weeks 6 days ago||What does it mean that he's a||
What does it mean that he's a great man? The OP focuses most on how likable he is - a nice quality, to be sure, but not one closely associated with greatness.
To me, character isn't about being likable. It's about what you do when the chips are down. In the Shane Morris incident, Hoke made a bad decision that put a kid's health at risk. He then failed to appropriately take responsibility for it. While I don't think one lapse should be presumed to define someone's character, I also don't see why the moral dimension of this incident is off limits for criticism. It was a moral failure as well as a bureaucratic failure.
There seems to be a gulf in opinion between those who have met Hoke in person and those who have not. Those who have tend to think very highly of him. For those of us who haven't, all we get to see is how he interacts with the media. As we know, Hoke refuses on principle to say anything substantive to the media. In general, I'm somewhat sympathetic to that stance, but in the case of Morris's head injury, the situation demanded a cogent and appropriately serious response, which he failed to provide.
From where I'm standing, I see a football team in disarray, and a guy who refuses to say anything to the media. Is there a great man there? I don't know. There's no way for me to know. But I do know he's not the right man for the job.
|17 weeks 3 days ago||The stereotype of the||
The stereotype of the hopelessly devoted fan seems to have gone from quietly shared commiseration between fans to a rigid expectation. Put simply, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect unconditional love and support from strangers. Especially when those in charge seize upon that support and exploit it financially.
|17 weeks 6 days ago||Whatever Hoke knew or didn't||
Whatever Hoke knew or didn't know, his actions put a player in an incredibly dangerous position. Incompetence, stupidity, malevolence? Who knows. Doesn't matter. He is in a position of tremendous responsibility for the welfare of young people. If he can't do his job appropriately, he needs to go.
|17 weeks 6 days ago||Who is the approrpriate||
Who is the approrpriate person to write to to voice outrage about Hoke's handling of Morris yesterday? President, regent...? I understand that my letter is unlikely to tip the scales, but I am still a member of the Michigan community and when behavior is this negligent and dangerous, I feel a need to register my disapproval in some way.
|17 weeks 6 days ago||I had to double-check to make||
I had to double-check to make sure this was written after the Minnesota game.
The difference, of course, that Beilein is a brilliant, capable coach. Hoke is not. Stability is preferable to chaos, but at the end of the day you need a guy in charge with the basic competency to run the program. Hoke is not that guy.
|17 weeks 6 days ago||I grew up in Ann Arbor and||
I grew up in Ann Arbor and have been a Michigan fan for my whole life. I've never felt this bad about the program. Losing a lot of football games is one thing, but putting a kid's health at risk is another. To the people saying Ace went too far, I can only assume you weren't at the game or didn't see what happened. I was sitting fairly close to where Shane got hit. The defender launched himself at his head after he released the ball. Shane was slow to get up and appeared shaky as he walked towards the Michigan sideline. After a few steps, he collapsed against an offensive lineman. He was between the Michigan sideline and midfield. I can't say for sure what Hoke saw or didn't see, but I can't imagine what else he would have been watching. His quarterback just took a vicious late hit that drew a penalty flag and was stumbling towards the sideline. In the stands around me, anger turned to disbelief as it became clear that Morris was staying in for the next play. Many people were screaming at Hoke to take him out. Then to put him in again several plays later...it's inexcusable. Hoke shouldn't get the rest of the year, he should be out immediately. At the end of the day losing games isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's gotten to the point where the kids aren't safe on the field. This has to end.
|19 weeks 2 days ago||If you're looking for tri tip||
If you're looking for tri tip in Ann Arbor, Sparrow Market in Kerrytown is a good option.
|22 weeks 3 days ago||Coaching v. recruiting?||
Very interesting. It seems like your model values recruiting very highly, and coaching not as much (which I understand is supported by the data). Some of the teams that have bucked your predictions have the reputation of being coached very well or very poorly. Arguably Michigan State has benefited from good coaching, while Texas has suffered from bad coaching. Maybe exceptional or putrid coaching is real, but rare, and has a huge impact on a few teams?
|41 weeks 17 hours ago||Fan v. Consumer||
It seems to me this all comes down to fan vs. consumers. Fans support the team unquestioningly, consumers make rational decisions. By exploiting fans' loyalty with continuously rising prices and a declining product, the AD is forcing more fans to think like consumers.
|48 weeks 3 days ago||How about a foul on a player||
How about a foul on a player shooting from behind the 4-point line results in one free (uncontested) 4-point shot? That way they get a fair shot at the points, but they still have to make that thing, as opposed to 4 normal foul shots which would suck.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||Man this O-line situation is bleak||
We're losing the only two competent players and they were both great players. I know there's a theory in circulation that great tackles don't help without a solid interior, but it's silly to think losing two great players won't make any difference. Great tackles alone don't make a good offensive line, but they certainly help. Losing those guys is going to hurt. Meanwhile, our staff has shown no ability to teach these guys how to play. In the bowl game they were so pessimistic about the line's ability to run block that they just never ran behind them. I just can't find anything in our O-line situation to feel good about. This is college football though, so sometimes unpredictable things happen for no apparent reason. Basically, we're hoping for a miracle.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||Come on guys. Gardner is||
Come on guys. Gardner is coming off one of the greatest performances of all time in the UM-OSU rivarly. Morris is coming off a so-so performance against KSU (which was a pleasant surprise). Yeah, Gardner is inconsistent, but pretty much everything positive the offense did in 2013 was him singe-handedly playing his ass off. He's our best chance for 2014, not even close.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||The problem is this staff||
The problem is this staff might not know how to teach guys to play O-line effectively, no matter how talented or numerous they are.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||Not so easy||
I've been making a living at poker for three years and I'm still often not sure of the best play. Basic probabilities are easy to memorize -- like you're about 2-1 against to hit a flush draw with two cards to come -- but what to do with that information isn't obvious. Do you call, hoping to hit and get paid off? Do you raise as a semi-bluff, expecting your opponent to fold often enough to make it profitable? Etc.
Likewise, these football decisions are unique and often difficult. Look at Brian's analysis of Michigan's decision to go for it on fourth down rather than kick a field goal late in the fourth quarter. The numbers swing in unexpected ways based on whether there are 7 minutes, 5 minutes, or 3 minutes left. There are a lot of weird quirks to the numbers. And the specific strengths and weaknesses of each team matter too. These are very difficult decisions that have to be made in a few seconds.
|1 year 8 weeks ago||Fine decision, bad process||
I was fine with the decision to go for two. BUT, it was widely reported that Brady Hoke made the decision by asking his seniors what they wanted to do. This was generally applauded, but if you ask me that's bad coaching. It's the players' job to be hyped up and play their asses off. It's the coach's job to keep a level head and make decisions that give the team the best possible chance of winning. A decision like going for two at the end of the game is on the coach and he shouldn't pass it off on guys who aren't in a position to think clearly.
|1 year 9 weeks ago||Nothing's a guarantee for||
Nothing's a guarantee for success, of course, but the idea seems sensible.
|1 year 9 weeks ago||Yeah, it's hard to know for||
Yeah, it's hard to know for sure without being an actual expert on football, but I think that makes a lot of sense.
"I think we can all agree now that they should have just installed A-E, gotten good at them, and then maybe learned P and Q during the bye weeks."
Yup, definitely. It seems you can actually have a a very small, simple offensive package that is still unexploitable as long as it's well-balanced. Adding more stuff beyond that just increases the amount of things BOTH teams have to prepare for, which doesn't make much sense if you're the team that's young and inexperienced.
Dana Holgorsen installs his basic offense in three days:
"Simplicity means that the offensive package — often thought of as the playbook, which for NFL teams could run to hundreds of pages — gets reduced to the bare essentials. For Holgorsen and the rest of the Air Raid spawn, there is no written playbook. Throwing the ball against a variety of coverages and fronts is hard enough, but overloading your players with sight reads, multiple protection schemes, and shifting assignments makes the whole endeavor nearly impossible for 18- to 22-year-old players. This simplicity makes repetition possible. Indeed, Holgorsen installed his core offensive package at West Virginia in ameasly three days; the rest of spring practice and fall camp was spent repeating those three days over and over to perfect the scheme, with additional wrinkles judiciously added."
Seems pretty smart to me.
|1 year 9 weeks ago||Lack of coherence||
re: the difficult-to-define lack of coherence, to me most of Borges' "surprise" plays feel gimmicky. You can almost sense the gleeful, "They'll never see THIS coming!" I get the feeling he sees counters, deception, and constraints as "tricks"...one-off ruses, not to be confused with the regular offense. Thus, surprise plays often feature different personel, different formations, or are weirder than they really need to be. But for coherent offenses these plays aren't tricks, they're baked into the offense itself and the whole package prevents defenses from selling out to stop one thing and punishes them if they do.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||I'm not sure why you're||
I'm not sure why you're attacking this point so hard, Delhi. It was just a minor observation at the end of the post where he noted a playcalling tendency that might push the numbers slightly in M's favor. It wasn't really crucial to the overall analysis.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||Biggest takeaway for the||
Biggest takeaway for the non-math-inclined: you don't have to get the first down very often to make going for it the right play.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||A lot of numbers are being||
A lot of numbers are being thrown around out of context.The 70% in OP didn't refer to Michigan's chance of scoring a touchdown, and 30% isn't an average, it's how often M would have to convert to make going for it the best decision. Guys, read the post before responding!
|1 year 10 weeks ago||I just flipped a coin and it||
I just flipped a coin and it came up heads. Based on experience, the tails % is zero and the heads % is 100%.
|1 year 10 weeks ago||Double-checked the||
Double-checked the calculations myself and they're right...of course.
Math doesn't tell us the right decision, but it does inform our opinion. In particular, the breakeven point being only 30% is extremely important and non-intuitive (I think most people would have guessed a much higher number). If you're the coach here and, based on your team's performance so far, think you have a 40% chance of converting, you might not go for it...but you'd be absolutely wrong. We can debate whether Michigan actually had a 30% chance of converting in that moment, but the math tells us what we're shooting for.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Really a no-brainer for the||
Really a no-brainer for the kid. Play for the dominant team that's stacking up championships, or the tire fire?
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Great thread. To build on the||
Great thread. To build on the questions about Michigan tipping their plays (or not), what do our resident coaches think about the suggestion that Michigan's offense isn't built in a way to punish defenses for selling out to stop likely plays? So maybe we don't tip our specific play every time, but we aren't prepared to exploit defenses for attacking our tendencies in unsound ways.
I'm a poker player by trade. A key concept in poker is that every bet needs to have the possibility of being a strong hand or a bluff. So a bet with a certain hand might not be bad in itself, but if you're not capable of making the same bet with a balanced range of hands, a good opponent can exploit your strategy.
Is something similar happening with our offensive strategy? That is, our individual plays are not bad, but our overall strategy allows the opponent to attack us in an effective way a high % of the time?
|1 year 11 weeks ago||"That is the great thing||
"That is the great thing about football. You can be anything you want. You can be a spread team, I-formation team, power team, wing-T team, option team, or wishbone team. You can be anything you want, but you have to define it." -Chip Kelly