landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
- Member for
- 6 years 37 weeks
|10 weeks 2 days ago||Let 'er rip||
I'd also like to hear your ideas, coach. What about a soft headgear like in amateur boxing? That way the head can't be used as a weapon, but the wearer still has some protection. Heck you could even be allowed to grease the outside to prevent the spinal injuries one other poster mentioned. Keep the targeting penalties and enforce better. I think this will get better with time--clinics and conferences will be held, etc. Remember the disaster instant replay was when it first started? Over time it's gotten much better. Still not perfect, but pretty darn good and think of the alternative.
|22 weeks 3 days ago||What's the takeaway?||
OK, we shouldn't generalize the problem as "concussions". So what? It seems pretty conclusive to me that CTE is caused by severe and/or repeated (sub-) concussive blows to the head. Yes, maybe Sony is over-simplifying for the sake of marketing, which can be dangerous. But at the end of the day--whether caused by concussions, MTBI, etc., the root cause you always arrive at is blows to the head. Yes, the statistical analysis may, on its face, only show correlation between CTE and age of entry and duration of participation in the sport. But if these factors were causal, we'd see the same incident rate of CTE in all sports, yes? I think we can take it as a given that people enter most if not all team sports at ages as young/old as football (and one might hypothesize that it is trending younger than football, given many youth football programs are going away from pads/tackle to flag), and play as long as football (and one might hypothesize longer, given the wear and tear football seems to impose on the body). And then you state that incidents of CTE are "very rare outside football players, boxers and hockey players." This seems at odds with your earlier points about correlation? And you state AoF is seasonal...where's the data on that?
When you point out Sony's conflation, and use the phrase "Attack on Football", it comes across to me as a covert play on emotion and deflects people away from the real issue: how to make the game safer. If anything, eliminating this conflation only increases the "attack", because the frequency of sub- and/or concussive blows is higher than just "concussions". If you see evidence that people are overreacting or missing the mark in terms of potential solutions, then show data on that and make that argument.
|24 weeks 6 days ago||Slammer!||
|24 weeks 6 days ago||The Velvet Hammer!||
|5 years 10 weeks ago||ugh, vikings||
Brian, I have to assume you watched the game on regular TV. Because if you're like me and you watched the streaming online version--"Visigod TV"or whatever it's called--sponsored by Capital One, you'd be so sick of Vikings you would've HAD to choose some other visual.
Also, I hope the denouement features some type of warning to the team not to let their heads swell upon hearing the prognostications that have already hit the internet, which say they're going to challenge for the Big Ten title next year. Seems that sort of hybris afflicted the '09-'10 team.
|5 years 10 weeks ago||one observation||
Your seedings/pairings make sense to me, all except the positions of Miami and BC. Why would the committee make a 3-5, 4-6 set up, sending BC to St. Louis and Miami to Manchester, when they could have the natural, 3-6, 4-5 set up and keep BC (Manchester) and Miami (St. Louis) in their home regions and increase fan attendance? Moreover, if you're one of the top 4 seeds, wouldn't you get preference to stay in your home region over lower seeds? And this just so we don't have any intraconference matchups? That seems like a worse trade-off to me. So you get two (potential) intraconference matchups in the second round in Michigan-Miami and BC-Merrimack--who cares? And it's really only net one more (potential) intraconference matchup, as Miami-ND goes away.
|5 years 21 weeks ago||This still saves RR's job||
So instead of 12-0 we would've been 9-3? I'm guessing those 3 losses would've been the three co-Big 10 champions, MSU, Wisconsin and OSU. If that had actually been the case, NO WAY does RichRod get replaced. All this talk on the internet and talk radio and TV isn't even happening. I'd say that's significant.
|5 years 22 weeks ago||p.s. on Roh||
He had HALF A SACK this year. I know we all love him but you have to stare that stat in the mirror. I'm sure no one's more disappointed in it than he.
|5 years 22 weeks ago||Huh?||
This team gives up the most yards in the history of Michigan football and every position save FS and PR get passing grades? I guess one could give them some benefit of the doubt if these grades are somewhat foreward-looking, but I think you gotta drop more than one of these groups down. DE...what plays did these guys make even with Roh as a true edge guy? Not nearly enough IMO. LB...OK Demens looking like a pretty good player but after that, what have we got? Oh and Cam, WRAP YOUR DAMN ARMS FOR ONCE. SS...I can't give Kovacs too much credit, I mean, unless your team gives up a TD every play, someone is going to rack up a bunch of tackles when the other team averages 73.5 plays a game and your D-line is mostly just occupying blockers.
|5 years 27 weeks ago||not apples to apples, though||
While I do agree the 85 D was better, it didn't have to face a Heisman winning QB with a 1st rounder at RB (Beanie Wells) and WR (Tedd Ginn) in an offense that could and did run pro or spread.
|5 years 27 weeks ago||how sad of a panda?||
Less sad than if we had none of that stuff and were 5-7 every year, I'm guessing. Of course I'm exaggerating a bit for effect, but look at the correlation between size of athletic department budget and on-field success. It's sobering but it's reality. As long as we don't get to the point of thinking, "this national championship for UM was brought to you by Ford Motor Co.," I'll be OK.
|5 years 27 weeks ago||observation or paranoia?||
Brian, marketing does not have to equal corporate sponsorship ads all over the place. Marketing simply means doing a better job aligning your product, its placement and its promotion (and its price if you want the full b-school "four P's" treatment) to your customer base. As part of this, any good marketing person would try to avoid a lot of visible, corporate logos on everything because s/he knows the consumers that are Michigan fans are going to be turned off by this, maybe to the point of boycotting the sponsors' products. (Assuming you did before, are you now going to buy fewer roast beef sandwiches, curly fries or jamocha shakes from Arby's because you're disgusted with their logo on the Big Chill t-shirts?) This said, it's going to be hard to get corporations to invest in UM athletics if their presence isn't visible.
Leading to the second point: I agree with poster Mgobowl, that I believe he was tailoring his message to the publication/reader. If Brandon was asked in a press conference what his job as CEO of UM athletics was, I don't think he'd simply talk about the balance sheet and cash flow statement. Even so, if making money isn't the central purpose of his role, it is at least undeniably the biggest facilitator of that central purpose, IMO. If the athletic department can't make money, not only can't it reinvest that money into providing a better on-the-field product and/or a better experience for students (athlete and non-athlete alike) and fans, but also it is a drain on the university's ability to provide better academic and research opportunities for students, faculty and staff. And while bringing the product to market better isn't necessarily always about making money, it is always about influencing someone's choice. 90% of the time that choice is a purchasing choice. The other 10% is political. (Unfortunate but necessary disclaimer: these are not real stats based on any research whatsoever, just my hyperbole based on observation.)
|5 years 30 weeks ago||They have a library now?!?||
|5 years 32 weeks ago||It's not THAT hard||
Heck, Auburn's QB has been running a LOT of midline this year, along with QB iso and the stretch play, and he's a first year player. You look at that throw back to the TE we did for our first TD last week--that was something we hadn't done all year but they inserted it in practice, ran it dozens of times there, and put it in the game successfully. It's not like Denard needs tons more reps to get better at the stretch zone read.
|5 years 32 weeks ago||Moreover, RR's public comments||
Moreover, RR's public comments have to be more tame in order to prevent them from becoming MSU bulletin board material. And I agree with most here; whether or not RR "understands" the rivalry enough has a minute impact on the outcome.
|5 years 32 weeks ago||plus/minus||
On the minus side, most of the teams we've played are HORRIBLE defensively, except UConn (a mediocre 59th in NCAA FBS Total Defense) and MSU (42nd in Total D), who held us to about half our season averages in PPP, total points and total yards.
On the plus side, all of the teams Iowa has played are HORRIBLE offensively (FBS team and 88th, 93rd and 104th in FBS Total Offense), except for Arizona (26th in FBS Total O) who put up 360+ yards of O, mostly through the air, although two of AZ's scores were not on Iowa's D (85 yd int return and 100 yd k.o. return).
Let's hope that Iowa's D was somewhat exposed vs. Arizona while our O merely sh*t the bed vs. MSU. Specifically, let's hope Denard displays the passing accuracy he did in the first five games; you gotta bet Iowa is going to use the MSU blueprint, except adding a fearsome pass rush, and force us to beat them through the air. RichRod, Magee and Rod Smith, I further hope, are coaching Denard to just make the plays instinctively that he sees, just like he did in weeks 1-5; be decisive whether you're going to shoot the three or pass. That should at least keep it close.
|5 years 32 weeks ago||once is OK||
As a Michigan fan, there will be many, many times in your life where you will encounter Juggalos like the ones Brian wrote about here. On one occasion, it is OK for you to check this guy to the ground without hesitation or remorse. I think that's what the 6'5" guy Brian refers to should have done, heck I think it's what Brian should've done, and I've seen a close friend of mine do it to a Stiffler U. student (?)(beating me to the punch) as we were walking home from the Stiffler game in 1990. (Yes, that game. Coach Moeller: "He tackled him in the end zone! HE TACKLED HIM!!") Walking down Hoover in front of the Natatorium, said Stiffler student is doing the six-gun shooters at every M fan walking solemnly by, only to accidentally brush my friend. He was correctly deposited to the street surface.
I know many of you are above this, and rightly so. All's I'm sayin' is that if I see any of you do this, I will just acknowledge you with a nod and that pursed-lipped frown that says, "yeah, that's about right." And I will have your back, too. Just don't make it a habit.
|6 years 4 days ago||A bit harsh||
Technically, he's not wrong yet. That won't be till August. Besides, if the NCAA wants to make an example of someone in order to bring all schools in line, would they be more likely to pick Michigan--the all-time winningest school with no prior major violations in its history--or San Diego State? You see this sort of thing all the time in government, e.g. EPA going after major corporations for environmental impact vs. mom and pop operations who sometimes do much, much worse.
Basically, it ain't over till it's over. I agree with you that I don't think anything will be added by the NCAA. But that's speculation, not fact.
|6 years 14 weeks ago||Andy Staples from SI||
took a first crack at looking back at the 2006 and 2007 classes and re-ranking based on production. It's a good start to the analysis and it's certainly something that needs to be looked at, but I have a few things I'd like to see improved:
Here is the link for this year's article, on the revised 2007 rankings:
|6 years 23 weeks ago||Not so hard||
North-South Brian, with one cross-division rivalry game allowed to be protected with mutual agreement from the two schools. Therefore...
North - Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan State, MICHIGAN
Protected cross-division rivalries: MICHIGAN-OSU, MSU-PSU, Illinois-Northwestern
The reason I like UM & OOHI in separate divisions is that you keep the possibility of them meeting in a Championship Game alive. This has to be done. The problem is not having an immediate rematch. The solution is to move The Game to end of October. The game will always be relevant unless either team just totally goes in the tank with an 0fer start.
Scenario: UM & OOHI play around Halloween, winner is set up for division championship, loser has a new sense of urgency to win remaining games to get a chance to avenge their loss. We move MSU or Minnesota--our next most storied in-conference rivalries--to the last regular season game to give it some added meaning. We take the Paul Bunyan or Little Brown Jug off the field as a lead-in to the Big10 championship game. (But no goofy NHLesque don't-touch-the-tropy-because-it's-a-jinx superstitions, please.)
|6 years 23 weeks ago||My two cents||
For one, constructing the best players and the best team might be a different exercise. My starting 5 would be:
PG - Gary Grant
Coming off my bench would be Rumeal, Rudy T, Jalen, Rickey Green, Phil Hubbard, Loy Vaught and Louis Bullock. Those last two are illustrations of putting a team together vs. the most accomplished players. Loy was an insane rebounder and led the conference in FG% in 89 and 90. And I think you need one stone-cold, dead eye assissin who can just light 3's if you need it. You already have one in the starting 5, but you get to those end of game, comeback situations and you need another one. A couple guys I considered for Loy's spot were Juwan Howard (who I think is underrated and whose stats are probably suprisingly better than any of us think) and Terry Mills. Tim McCormick and Maurice Taylor might be others.
Then, of course, there's the other-worldly performance of J.P. Oosterbaan, but no one here needs futher explanation of that.
|6 years 23 weeks ago||proposal||
North: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan State, MICHIGAN
I think you have to put us and OOHI in opposite divisions in order to create the possibility we'll meet in the championship game. You can't eliminate that out of hand, that would be stooooopid. Seriously, really dumb. The Big10 Championship never has UM-OSU!? Are you kidding?
"Quite frankly" I would like to see Northwestern get the boot and bring both Pitt AND Mizzou in. Northwestern is the only private school, is rarely relevant and we don't need them for the Chicago market. There are scads of alumni from about half of the conference's schools from and/or living there already.
|6 years 28 weeks ago||SIAP: Mike Williams must be banished to special teams||
I was at the game Saturday and saw the same thing we've all seen all year: Mike Williams is a really bad football player. I don't have anything against him personally, don't know him from the guy working at the BP. And I'm certainly no Steve Sharik in terms of football knowledge, but Williams is atrocious. I'm surprised his UFR numbers aren't worse, actually. He seemed to be either out of position or, even when in position, taking atrocious angles on almost every play. Time to put Troy back at Strong, Jordan back at Free, and J.T. Floyd back at the corner opposite Donovan. I know the State game was Chinese water torture, but we only gave up 20 that game to a team that's better than the last two we just lost to, giving up 38 both times to do it.
Q for Coach Sharik: do you see any indications that our secondary coach is not good? I mean, can Mike Williams just be that dumb where he can't pick anything up? If that were the case, wouldn't some other guys like B. Smith, Emilien, Mike Jones, Turner, the trainer, be passing him by now?
Man, I wish I was back in school again...
|6 years 30 weeks ago||Where do you get that?||
|6 years 30 weeks ago||Context, please||
What's the number for our offensive recruits? What's the number for some other programs' D recruits (MSU, OSU, ND, Fla, USC, Texas, Oklahoma)?
|6 years 30 weeks ago||What about Dior Mathis?||
It seems you hardly ever mention him, but he's rated pretty highly by Rivals and very highly by ESPN (I know, consider the source).
|6 years 32 weeks ago||Unfortunate, but understand; your life||
Unlike some of the other posters, I think that not only is there room for more than one coach/ex-coach on here, it is desirable. Having two or more coaches on here debating makes us all smarter about football because, as you say, there is more than one way to skin a cat (there's no one coach who knows as much about the west coast offense as Bill Walsh AND as much about the run and shoot as June Jones AND as much about zone blitzing as Dick Lebeau AND on and on and on). In addition, it points out to the rest of us laymen that even professionals can disagree. This is the interesting part to me, and takes us more into what it might be like behind the scenes in the offices at Schembechler Hall. Many coaches with their own backgrounds and abilities, discussing strategy and tactics. That's the stuff.
So, I at least hope you'll continue posting responses to Brian's blogs and Steve's diary, or others more sabremetrically based, or any you want. (I just don't read those as much. ;)
Enjoy the family and good luck with everything.
|6 years 34 weeks ago||statistical correlation||
Great info. What interests me is how often the teams start with various field position. For instance, if we most often both start with a long field, then that weights it to a negligible difference. If there are quite a few possessions that start with short fields, then the difference in the teams becomes more pronounced. I have a feeling the former is the case, though. This is hinted at with the average starting field position you show, as well as your comments about the little data you have for State starting with a short field on offense.
I think average starting field position could yield some more useful data if you looked just at the data points around those field positions. In other words, how do our O and their D perform when we and State's opponents start at/near the 31 (maybe do a +/- 3 to 5 yards to get a large enough sample size)? How do our D and their O perform when our opponents and they start at their own 26? I think that gives us a more insightful analysis. Average field position is somewhat limiting in that outliers can skew the data, and the 25-yard segmentations you have make it harder to apply that average, as the trend may not be linear to the other poster's point. Even if you can't do the 26 and 31 yardline analyses, maybe at least you could lump all the data from the 25 to the 35, which would give a big enough sample size.
You got me thinkin', that's for sure. Thanks for the preso.