at least it's not just us?
- Member for
- 4 years 37 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Yards per play?||
I think you really should normalize for pace. If you don't want to do yards per play, you can also factor total yards by the percentage of the plays run divided by plays run in an average game.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||Your screen name||
does not match the tone in your post!
|6 weeks 2 days ago||A reason for mediocrity...||
Like 6-2 mediocrity? Like a couple of missed game-winning field goals away from 7-1 mediocrity?
Yes, the offense is painful to watch. Yes, the MSU game was frustrating. However, what we're watching, as a whole, is a team that until this past week was still ranked in the top 25 in the nation. I'd say we've achieved somewhere in the realm of mediocrity.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||WRONG!||
The average would equal negative 13.5 yards per carry!
|8 weeks 1 day ago||I agree||
I think it was mentioned in yesterday's post that Indiana has a tendency to blitz the corner from the boundary, so it's likely that Devin was looking specifically for that, and with some subtle pre-snap tells, he only needs a glance post-snap to verify yes or no. The corner is either screaming at him, or he hands off.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||I disagree||
I find it dangerous to disagree with you, because you clearly know football better than me, but the following is my interpretation: On the play above, the pre-snap read shows corner blitz, so he was planning to pass unless the post-snap read was different. After the snap, the corner backs off, so he turns to hand off. On the first play, his pre-snap read was to hand off. After the snap, he glances at the CB to make sure his pre-snap read was correct before handing off. I think you can actually see him continue with his plan, turning to hand off, as his brain processes what he just saw in the brief glance: the corner is coming! He suddenly realizes the implications of the post-snap read, hence the awkward looking throw -- he has just realized that he is going to hand it off into a corner blitz, and suddenly turns to fire it to Gallon as quickly as possible. The throw was a play that I rewound several times prior to seeing Brian write it up. After seeing further evidence that it is a packaged play, I'm more confident that my take is the right one.
|10 weeks 3 days ago||Nice job, Seth||
The YPP was lower against Minnesota than the overall season average, but drive success rate was rather good. This is due to a much smaller standard deviation in YPP (fewer negative plays) that offsets the lower average output. With a lower YPP, scoring drives have to go much longer in terms of plays, but the likelihood of success is increased due to better consistency. The real question is how much increase in variance does it take to offset one YPP.
|13 weeks 16 hours ago||I wonder...||
if the show's producers weren't hoping for some drama when they started putting the idea together. I would tend to give credit for the cordial nature of the show to the contestants rather than the people putting the show together, but maybe it's just because I'm cynical and jaded...
|13 weeks 4 days ago||When can we get back to playing||
|16 weeks 17 hours ago||Lloyd Brady!||
He's everywhere! Brilliant.
|18 weeks 2 days ago||Crisp, cool Autumn air It's||
Crisp, cool Autumn air
It's starting to feel like Fall
But no football yet
|19 weeks 20 hours ago||It was my freshman year...||
There was absolutely no critical thought in my mind when he fielded that punt. It was a magical year for him. I'd bet pretty much everyone there wanted to see him have as many opportunities with the ball in his hands as possible.
|19 weeks 2 days ago||It makes perfect sense...||
One prediction is made by someone with reason, the other prediction is made by an algorithm that has some (major) flaws.
|19 weeks 2 days ago||You have it backward||
A home team at -5 means that the home team is GIVING 5 points, meaning they are FAVORED by 5. If that were true in this case, the Akron and CMU games would be the ones in which we were the biggest underdgogs. It is not the correct interpretation of the +/-.
|20 weeks 5 days ago||I'm here...||
Of course, one of the first steps before improving the process is understanding value in the eyes of the customer. So, if speed is more valuable than comprehension, I fully support the use of "UM" for Urban Meyer.
|23 weeks 1 day ago||I think you missed one...||
unless it's in the final region, but I think it fits in the Dagger region:
1990 Michigan vs. Michigan State -- 2 point conversion for the win, defender grabbed Desmond Howard by the ankle, no call.
Edit: I see I'm slow and others mentioned this one above.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||I'm not being defensive, I'm just pointing out||
why I think you're wrong. You just said that their decision may have been a rational one, but in your original post you wrote: "If we stopped recruiting Burbridge because folks thought he wouldn't qualify, that would be a major screw-up." As you've replied to our messages, you've tempered your language from "major screw-up" to rational but a mistake. You are missing the point. An individual decision that is in line with an overall policy is not a mistake. It is intentional. The decision is not a screw-up. The results may not go in your favor, but that doesn't make the decision, or the policy, wrong. I'm not being defensive, I'm being quite offensive. I'm pointing out that you incorrectly labeled the coaches' decision a "major screw-up." I'm not blindly following the coaches, I'm saying that you can't use hindsight on a single occurrence to cast judgement on decisions and policies that are being followed with great intention and for good reason.
I was going to let this argument lie, but I felt it necessary to respond for one reason: You are doing more than arguing your point. Statements like "you are being defensive," and "you feel for some reason that you have to stick up for the coaching staff," are both wholly irrelevant and inaccurate statements related to my psychological being.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||No||
Can we say it was a negative outcome for Michigan? Yes, most likely, although a little early to call definitively. Was it a mistake? No. When you look at the facts and decide not to take a risk, it is not a mistake simply because you later find out the risk would have paid off. Nobody messed up. They made a choice to take the safer path. They've made that choice on a number of occasions. One negative outcome does not mean that the path is the wrong one in general. If they consistently stick to the safer path, and sometimes it works out for the better and sometimes for the worse, you can't point to the case when it went negative as a mistake. It is part of an overall strategy that this staff is clearly sticking to, and that I fully support.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Sorry, I'm confused||
Is that post arguing against what I said, or just adding to what I said? If arguing, let me point out: I essentially said that the above poster was only right if your definition of quarterback was "pro-style quarterback." By giving me the results of the pro-draft, it would tend to agree with each of us that he is not a pro-style quarterback. However, someone who played quarterback throughout college, and finished atop the all-time leading rushers for the position in Division 1 (and top 5 all-time passing yardage at Michigan) did a good job playing his position. To say you don't want him as a quarterback in your offense makes sense if your offense is pro-style. To say he wasn't a good quarterback requires a pretty narrow definition of the position, though.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||It doesn't have to be a screw up, or even the wrong move...||
As I understood it, Michigan cooled on him because they thought he MIGHT not qualify, and they didn't want to dedicate a spot to a guy who may not ever make it to campus. When you take a calculated risk (or choose not to take one), you can't later declare that it was a mistake simply based on the results. You make the best choice based on the current facts, and you move on. Sometimes it turns out well, and sometimes it doesn't, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you did something wrong.
Edit: Man, was I slow in my response. In essence, "what WolvinLA said".
|23 weeks 2 days ago||You might need to revise your definition||
Denard finished number one all time in Division 1 for quarterback rushing yards. To say he was not a good quarterback is simply wrong. I'd assume it's because you are defining quarterback as pro-style quarterback only. He was a quarterback, and he was good.
|25 weeks 2 days ago||Don't tell me||
what's in your cup, just pass it over and let me have a sip of it.
|26 weeks 14 hours ago||No||
It doesn't depend on "why." A University makes a certain amount of revenue from athletics. Some of that revenue comes from royalties and video games. To use any portion of that money REQUIRES a University to spend less elsewhere. In general, Universities are not making profits from their athletic departments. In fact, most athletic departments are losing money. They cannot simply stop hoarding the cash. To give away money, most athletic departments will be losing MORE money. They have to make cuts. There is no emotion or reasoning that matters. It doesn't matter "why the players would be getting the money." It's just plain, simple math. If the athletic department loses money, they have to take the money from the budget of the rest of the University, or they have to take money from other areas of the athletic budget.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||Nike||
While your critique of my post with regard to the specific example of Nike is fair and accurate, the basic problem is still there. Publicly traded companies are not likely to operate that way, but there are plenty of privately held companies owned by program boosters that would suddenly have 85 new endorsement deals as soon as they were allowed.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||Endorsements||
Allowing football players to get paid for endorsements would certainly damage the system and the amateur model. I'm sure that as soon as they could be paid for endorsing products, most of the Oregon team would become paid spokesmen for Nike. It would be an end-around in which a university still could not pay the players, but major program boosters could. The universities with the richest boosters would have the ability to attract the most talented high school players because they would be paying out the highest "endorsement" deals. While it may not be the wrong thing for the players in the short term, it would ruin competitive college football in the long term, as the richest programs have an even easier, unregulated path. While the playing field is not currently level, allowing players to be paid for endorsements would flip it on edge.
|27 weeks 4 days ago||Had I known...||
Had I known my post would conjur so many ghost posts, I may have withheld. Now, what are the odds of this getting a reply of "-1 restive neb"?
|27 weeks 4 days ago||A work-around?||
A former employer of mine once had a backlog of IT related issues so large that if there were any manual work-arounds, they would not dedicate any IT time to providing a solution. This inspired me. I think we should adopt a work-around for the points system. From now on, whenever you want to "+1" someone, just say so in a post, remembering to explicitly say who you're awarding the point. For example:
+1 to uniqenam
Then, we nominate someone to read every post, and manually tally the points. Once a week, that person can post an update of users' points, so we all know where we stand.
I nominate one of the following two people to be in charge of this new system:
2. not me
Just in case anyone thinks this is actually a good idea: /s
|41 weeks 4 days ago||No, that wasn't all that mattered!||
Even though we didn't have HDTV back then, there was a clear difference between good reception and bad reception. For the 1989 Championship game, I was at a house without cable. I tried my best to get good reception by adjusting the rabbit ears, but I was ultimately unsuccessful. I watched the whole game with an awful image -- there were two of everything. Every player had a shadow. On the positive side, you should have seen how many shots Glen Rice hit since there were two of him on the court!
|43 weeks 3 days ago||Nebraska's fit||
It's entirely possible that the Nebraska thing doesn't fit this theory because it was being led by a different calculus. Prior to their addition, the Big Ten was only at 11 members, and was unable to have a conference championship game (and the money that goes with it). The drive for expansion was led by the athletic conference. They added Nebraska to add a strong football program that would deliver both the 12th member and a conference championship game. Once there were 12 members, any additional expansion is being driven by different metrics. The Nebraska addition was probably initiated by the athletic conference, but it's possible that it opened the eyes of school administrators to the benefits of future expansions, and their calculations look a little different than the athletics guys'.
Edit: beaten to the punch because I'm slow and long-winded.
|44 weeks 4 days ago||Horrible idea||
I'm for going in the exact opposite direction. Without the charge, an offensive player can just use his shoulders to clear space as much as he wants -- this is already too prevalent in basketball. This isn't football. It should be an advantage to be tall, quick, long and fast. It shouldn't be an advantage to weigh 300 pounds. Offenses should be based around movement and passing, not putting your shoulder into the defender and shoving them under the basket. Rules have been changed over the years to make the game faster-paced. Each change seems to make it harder to defend. They need to go the opposite direction and force teams to play team-oriented ball instead of making it a game of one-on-one skills.