“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 20 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- 76 currently on scholarship
- (minus) 13 are in their final year of elegibility*
- (plus) 23 currently committed
- (plus) 2 yet-to-be committed
- (equals) 86 scholarship players for 2013
|1 year 20 weeks ago||iPhone auto-correct!!!||
Medicated should read "medicaled"
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Austin Hatch||
Austin Hatch is worth mentioning. I know conventional wisdom is he gets medicated, but don't count him out. He's got an offer, he's verbally committed, and if Beilein thinks there's any chance he could play at this level he'll honor that commitment.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Newflash||
They indeed have no concept of their place in the pecking order.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||B2G (c)?||
The real question is: do Jim Delany and Co have "B2G" copyrighted yet?
With the trend towards super-sizing conferences, I suspect he's gonna need it in the near future.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||I Like Pods||
I like the pods idea and was talking with a fellow M alumn about something like this. For me, I'd rather the pods be all about geography/traditional rivals rather than "competitive balance" because more and more I'm interested in seeing good football games week after week. So I'd Pod the teams up like so:
POD A: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
POD B: Northwestern, Illinios, Purdue, Indiana
POD C: Michigan, MSU, OSU, Notre Dame
POD D: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse/UConn/Etc
Keep everything else you said about pairing up pods into divisions, play one team from cross-divisional pods per year at random.
If Notre Dame is a pipe-dream (which, probably), then shift Penn State into POD C and let POD D be an East Coast leftover Pod.
Seriously, the more guarenteed interesting football each year the better. Who cares about competitive balance if it means we have to play Maryland and Rutgers every year, and Wisconsin once every 5 years?
|1 year 45 weeks ago||Flip ND and IU||
Flip ND with IU and I'm with you. Who cares about so-called "competitive balance". Wouldn't it be better to gaurantee seeing UM play OSU, MSU, and ND every year?
|1 year 45 weeks ago||Competitive Balance Overrated||
I think the practical outcomes of "competitive balance" makes it an overrated value. I'd rather see good matchups every week, every year than have "balanced" divisions resulting in lots of games I don't care about every year. So, taking your four clusters, I'd rather see Michigan-MSU-OSU paired with Nebraska-Wisconsin-Minnesota-Iowa than Northwestern-Illinios-Purdue-Indiana. That's four boring conference games every year counterbalance with two interesting ones every year. Wouldn't it be better to see MSU, OSU, Nebraska, and Wisconsin every year?
|1 year 48 weeks ago||ACC Poaching||
So we're definitely poaching the ACC then. I don't know what to think. I guess our main priorities are TV markets and AAU membership.
So, add UCLA to the short list!
|1 year 48 weeks ago||My own math||
Based on scoring averages, I'm predicting the experts will say OSU -4 for the spread and a final score of 31-27 OSU.
But we have the best QB they've faced all year, and they've narrowly escaped several games. Their luck will run out. Devin and Denard steal the show. M 35-28 ...
|2 years 3 days ago||Good stuff||
Interesting metric, seems like a quality one. One thing people have said in other comments regards whether a team is in the top or bottom half of all FBS teams, and then valuing them either good or bad. A binary evaluation isn't as good here as a gradient one, IMO. Dividing all 124 FBS teams into thirds or quarters is better.
|2 years 4 days ago||Maybe||
Maybe YPA is better than YPG on the whole, I definitely see what you're saying. Total yards passing doesn't tell the whole story, especially in terms of efficiency.
On the other hand, the top YPA teams in the Big Ten have QBs who don't throw much because they're good at running and not great at throwing. Your unweighted YPA 1-2-3 is Denard Robinson, Taylor Martinez, and Braxton Miller. They are followed up by Wisconsin's duo of Danny O'Brien and Joel Stave, then Minnesota's duo of Marqueis Grey and Max Shortell. I wouldn't consider any of those guys good passing QBs.
In each of their cases, it seems like they average a lot of yards per passing attempt because they don't throw very often, because they're really good at running (or their RB is) and not great at throwing. Throwing is a known weakness, so you don't throw often, but when you do you have a higher level of efficiency. See Denard Robinson before they Bye week and after, where his passing efficiency has gone up directly because he's throwing the ball less. And why is he throwing the ball less? Because he's still not a great passer, demonstrated by the Notre Dame interception bonanza. So YPA doesn't seem to tell the full story either.
Also, it's interesting to see that the Big Ten features 6 teams at 100+ nationally in YPG and 5 teams at 100+ nationally in YPA. So whichever metric you choose (probably a combination is best), the conference is not very good at throwing the ball.
|2 years 4 weeks ago||7th in QB rating||
Yards per attempt might be the best metric, but QB rating might also be, for which Denard is 7th. INTs are INTs, and Denard amasses them in large numbers every year. Not convinced by your argument ... Yet. But I am hoping you're right. And I can see that Denard is a better passer this year as I watch the games.
|2 years 5 weeks ago||Catholic is not "ethnic"||
Catholic is a religion, not an ethnicity.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||2nd week in a row ... i guess||
2nd week in a row ... i guess that means he's our starting center. Plus, you know, the coaches said that they switched he and Barnum like 10 days before Alabama.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Careful research||
I researched each team, compared complex statistical data, plugged each team into NCAA '13 and simulated 1,000,000 seasons, looked at the rules of the Snark Draft ...
"Rules: Inverse snake. Everyone drafts a full team of 11 offensive/defensive players, two kickers, a FB/HB type (assuming 3 WR), and a nickelback. You can move people around within reason (OL, DL, LB) but those moves will be looked upon skeptically by your fellow drafters and viciously attacked when it comes to make a case for your teams. Once the three other players have drafted a position, the last to go must pick the last player at that position within two rounds*. When we are done we put the thing to a user vote after making our case. Whoever has Denard wins."
and can say conslusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Seth has Denard, therefore Seth wins.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Denarded by Seth||
Except that Seth got Denard (see rules), therefore game-set-match.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Excellent idea||
Seriously, this is an excellent idea. Seems like it would never happen, but here's hoping.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Deal precedes Brandon||
The deal was done by Martin, so Brandon apparently feels no allegience to the fact that we agreed to play in Storrs CT (or wherever their stadium is). I get asking about moving it, I get pushing back a little. But I'm with the "honor the deal" folks. I know it's about the brand and it's about the money, but the "Michigan Brand" more and more just means "money for Michigan". Show some respect for UConn and play at their place. DB, if you don't like the deal, be sure not to make one like it on your watch.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Class of 2025?||
Of the three guys pictured above, what position is the guy on the left being recruited for? And for what class I wonder?
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Needs a new Top-3||
If his top-3 is indeed Florida, Auburn, and Michigan, he needs a new top-3. Doubtful Saban would let him transfer within the SEC. And unless he's thinking about transfering after Week 1 of this year, then Saban won't let him transfer to Michigan either ... since, you know, we are gonna play each other.
When is he thinking about transfering?
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Co-sign||
Co-sign. Great modification, perfectly addresses the ticketing issue.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Point taken, but more viewers possible||
I think Minnesota and Indiana fans would have enjoyed that match-up. Which makes me think more Big Ten fans would watch Big Ten football the first weekend in December in this format. Each fan base has a game to watch, probably 2 or 3 to see what the outcomes will be. Last December I made myself watch the MSU-WISC game at first, but couldn't stay engaged in it. I didn't care who won, and I probably was in good company across the Big Ten football fan base.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Same simple explanation||
... that dads have been telling their kids for years (until last year): the team with the best record is the champion.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Upside to suspension||
Well, in the event that Toussaint remains suspended, at least there's the upside of sticking it to Drew Sharp and Mark Dantonio all at once.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Oops||
You're right. I was just actually trying to edit it and was told I didn't have access to do that. 88 scholarships, so we are over by 3.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Scholarship Math||
First, best of luck, Mr. Carter.
Second, the maths:
So a 25-person incoming class of 2013 means we need exactly one more person to not get a 5th year, choose to leave on their own terms, or get booted.
* D.Robinson, V.Smith, R.Roundtree, B.Moore, E.Mealer, P.Omameh, R.Barnum, W.Campbell, C.Roh, K.Demens, B.Hawthorne, JT.Floyd, J.Kovacs
|2 years 16 weeks ago||Harder 2012 Schedule||
Great work here. I expect a major confounding factor to be the relative difficulty of our schedule. 2011's schedule was very favorable (8 home games, didn't play Wisconsin, got OSU at home when they were terrible). The 2012 schedule is much more difficult (6 road games including vs. Alabama in Dallas, Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Ohio State). It could be that the defense is as good as last year but is worse statistically because of the big jump in schedule difficulty. It would be interesting to see whether this was a factor between Mattison's first and second years at WMU.
|2 years 30 weeks ago||Shocked and saddened here.||
Shocked and saddened here. Never thought Smotrycz would transfer. He's a Beilein 4-man all the way, had contributed some good play, had afew things to work n, and was likely to be a contributor going forward. Where did that come from?
I also thought Brundidge had said to a newspaper in the last month that he would definitely be back next year. We have minutes to be won in next year's backcourt ... What happened?
I get Christian trying his luck elsewhere, but still sad to see him go. I appreciated his play when he got on the court. That was just overly often and looked unlikely going forward, so i guess that makes sense.
Seriously, best of luck to each. Thanks for what you've given. You will be missed.
|2 years 31 weeks ago||Early v Late||
The starting 5 will probably evolve through the season next year, mostly because we have a lot of talent coming in who will need to learn the offense. I think the coaches will start the more experienced guys initially, but i expect the freshmen will crack the starting line-up eventually. We've seen several freshmen come right in and start recently (Burke, Hardaway, Morris, Morgan, even Douglass and Novak). But they did so because there was no one else competing with them for the starting roles. Next year there will be a lot of competition at every position except PG, so I expect a lot of movement in the first part of the season. Still, here's a guess:
1 - Burke (obviously)
|2 years 31 weeks ago||Not gonna happen||
The last time Beilein lost an opening round game in the NCAA tournament was 1996 at Canisius. The last time in the NIT was 1994, also at Canisius. He has won 9 consecutive opening round games in those two tournaments, going back to 1998 at Richmond. Sorry, Ohio.