Recent Comments

Thanks for doing this - helps put a rational perspective on things. Unlike some sports like basketball where getting one player can elevate a team from an also-ran to a Elite Eight or even Final Four contender, one highly rated high school RB can only do so much - too many other variables.

This diary (which I hope you'll keep up and possible expand to other positions like OL, DL, DB, QB) demonstrates a few points:

1. One player can only do so much - note that many of the RBs who went on to success in the NFL didn't rack up 3-4 1000 yd/seasons in college. This can be due to many reasons (playing behind a good starter, bad OL, etc) but it also suggests most were probably not starting as freshmen and running for 4 years (unlike Mike Hart).

2. Michigan did try to recruit and did land some highly rated RBs - but for whatever reason, it just didn't pan out. So welcome Derrick Green, but I hope Brady Hoke and Fred Jackson also picked up a few 3 and 4 star backs.

3. ? Any way to detect synergy between OL and RB recruitment? That is, does landing 4 and 5 star RBs help land 4 and 5 star OL and vice versa? Or are they independent variables - neither OL and RB really seem affected by signings in the other group? I realize that this may be tricky to assess?

Historically cycling has always been suspect. BEFORE there were synthetic steroids available (pre-World War II) it was openly known that the top cyclists would fortify themselves with alcohol, cocaine, pep pills and strychnine - which was believed to help "loosen" up the muscles. So is it really that shocking ("Gambling at Rick's?!, I"m shocked - Inspector Renault, Casablanca) that once steroids, blood doping, etc. became available that it wouldn't be used?

In strength and endurance sports, the advantages are obvious - but even in so-called "skill" sports, these agents allow quicker recovery and more intense training.

Most people don't benefit - so most of the high school kids shooting up or loading up, are just wasting their money, time and threatening their future health for nothing.

But for a few top percent, the small but significant improvement can be the difference between 10th place and 1st place, gold and never-was, scholarship and high-school flame out.

Because of the secrecy we don't even know how PEDs could be used medically. When the whole BALCO affair developed the real push should have been aimed not just at Barry Bonds and Victor Conte, but at their biochemists - that is why BALCO was based there - it wasn't because Bonds was in SF. It is because UCSF, Berkley (U of California) and Stanford are around the corner. It takes more than a passing knowledge of biochemistry to design drugs and know the testing protocols to create structures to evade these tests. Notice that no one was charged in that regard? Where were the labs? Who was doing their synthesis? Who was running the initial trials to figure out the dosing programs and how to evade the testing? Designer PEDs are not off the shelf products - it isn't a met-amphetamine cooking receipe that someone cooks up on a cooktop in a trailer. If the sports governing bodies are serious about PEDs, they have to start here and understand how they are being created and how they are circumventing the testing process.

The NFL is often described as a copy-cat league. Once one team does something successfully the other teams emulate. The 1940 NFL championship game won by the Chicago Bears 73-0 over the Washington Redskins is usually cited as the game which established the T-formation as the dominant offensive formation for decades - replacing the single wing, A formation and other variants.

Could the success of Kapernick, RG3 and Wilson make teams reassess spread attack/pistol attack QBs? Granted these guys could really throw the ball but Kapernick really did major damage scrambling and on the called runs. The pistol dive option which went 50+ yards for the TD put to rest the notion that the spread can't work in the NFL.

The large victory margin in the early Bo era must also take into account that the conference schedule was a true round robin and they were fewer non-conference cupcakes. That shows the tremendous superiority of the Wolverines over most of the Big Ten (except OSU) during that time.

From the postings, it seems that the technology is here or wil be very soon but there is doubt about whether the business infrastructure is there to take advantage of it. Especially given the basic conservatism of the major content providers (pro and college football) - what incentive is there to move away from a model which is in their eyes predictable and so far incredibly lucrative? For the NCAA and college football conferences, there is also the impending true football playoffs for Div. 1 in a few years - another reason why the forces of standing pat might advocate doing nothing new and seeing how that works first - if that is a huge financial bonanaza it brings back the same point - why tinker with something that is working great?

Like a lot of new tech, the first users will have to be a bit more daring and a risk taker. The comedian Lous CK took such a chance with direct funding and promotion/distribution. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/louis-ck-video_n_1370516.html

So, it might take a second or third tier sport or one which has a strong internet niche following - e.g. the people who follow EPL in the USA, or world class rugby or cricket (I know these barely register on the sports radar here but that is the point)  the USA market is such that even a small fan base could be profitable.

The flip side hasn't been mentioned that such a system would allow easier and wider dissemination of US based sports around the world - something the NBA and NFL have long had an interest. The college game probably won't appeal to most except the most diehard world wide diehard football fans - but they do exist.

For now, suspect the deals based on the old cable model will be OK for a few more years, but once someone takes a chance, the direct stream of revenue and the flexibility will be irresistible to the leagues.

Like many I quickly clicked on the topic because I was confused and intrigued why Hoke was at a NBA-Olympic team reunion ... wondered if he talked with Magic, Bird, Jordan, etc.

It is easy to forget that once a huge monster player was someone who was 6'4" and weighed 245 lbs. If you look at the big NFL players of the late 1960's and early 1970's that was pretty big. Now, it is about average for some LB's let alone DT and DEs. The NFL and NCAA may want to bury their heads in the sand but there is some other factor (e.g. PED) at work creating the large numbers of supersized players. There was also a few very big players in the past - Roger Brown of the Lions from their Paper Lion era was one of only two 300 lbers in the NFL. Now, high school lines have been fielded where everyone is 300 lb+. Making the field wider and bigger (like in the CFL) may not help. As others have noted, it is not just the size but the speed - these new big players aren't just chunky but really fast. So it isn't just their Mass but their Velocity squared which is dangerous.

Making the players more conscious of their vulnerability may help - ironically lessening the amount of equipment might decrease the false sense of invulnerability. Do top flight rugby players have the same concussion percentage? (not a regular fan of rugby but perhaps there are MgoBlog fans here who are).

Single platoon with only limited substitution (think of it like a baseball game - once a player is subbed, he's out for the game) would make multi-talented players very important, but still allow running and passing of all sorts. It would place a natural brake on speed - the players would have to save their strength and energy. It would also allow small schools to compete more readily with big schools. Often small schools have a few talented players but can't fight the depth of a big school. We'd see more NCAA MBB tourney style upsets. BUT of course, this won't happen - too much money, and the increased specialization and speed is too entertaining on TV. Few QBs would develop to the degree they have today, if they also had to play DB. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady probably couldn't run well enough to stay on defense. Devin Gardner, Denard Robinson and for those remember, Nolan Cromwell would have been OK as DB/QB. All of the discussion about where to kickoff, the ease of field goals and such would become moot - no one would field a specialist kicker. So we'd probably not see many 40-50 yard FG attempts and more squib kickoffs.

Perhaps once upon a time, eliminating the unlimited substitution rule and forcing teams to play single platoon style might have worked (this was largely how the game was played in Yost's time I think) As recently as the 1960's this issue was actually still be debated. Just too much money today to take a step in that direction.

I hope DR gets the record AND he has a great post-UM career in what ever he does. Today it is hard to know unless you are on the inside, but it seems like he is a good guy and it would be great if he could end his college career as the record holder. He hasn't done anything publically to embarass the school or team. Go Denard and Go Wolverines!

A close game will go to the UM but a rout ... ugh.

Go Blue!

If Brady Hoke, Al Borges and Greg Mattison win this, this would rank as one of the greatest UM victories - dare I say it, it can be mentioned in the same breadth as the 1969 game.

When you dislike someone or disagree with them, it is easy to overlook their attributes and only focus on their shortcomings. This is a good Buckeye team. Beating them would be an accomplishment.

Hi, just trying to understand some background on this deal.

1. We know already there are a multitude of UM, OSU and PSU fans in the NYC to Wash DC corridor.

2. It is already possible to view the BTN in that area on local cable providers.

I was curious how easy option 2 is for fans? I have Comcast and most of the most basic packages have BTN in their sports lineup. Is that the case for people in Virginia, Maryland, NJ, and NY State?

If it is, then the move isn't so much about getting the network onto cable packages as much as it is leveraging it into a more favorable position and promoting greater interest.

The obsession over this whole comment cuts to the heart of the current Spartan UM issue.

The UM being the older institution (since 1817 and nearing it bicentennial) and the one which has long been more influential (politically, economically, socially) can be looked upon as the "old firm" establishment and MSU as the upstart. It began as the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan - becoming later the State Agricultural College. The school predates East Lansing as a municipality. By the early 1900, it had evolved into Michigan Agricultural College. By the 1920's it was Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science. It was not until 1964 that it actually became Michigan State University (MSU).

Historically with the many name changes and an ever evolving mission one can see that a fixed identity has only been recent development. Interestingly the Spartans had a long period of football prowess which dominated the 1950's and early 1960's. The only joined the Big Ten in 1949 but the Duffy Daugherty era (1954-1972) saw them finish first in the Coaches Poll twice in 1965 and 1966.

So why aren't the Sparty Fans more magnamimous given a pretty decent football history? The end of Daugherty era saw the rise of Bo and with that, years of 0.500 or so teams and the 1970's ushered in the Big 2 and the Little 8. It was also a period when college football on TV became really big with color TV penetration overtaking black-white broadcasts and those "in color" notices on TV programs started to fade out.  The reach of TV, the vast size of the UM alumni, and the expansion of the student body coincided nicely with Bo's great period. Vast pools of people now followed the Wolverines who had no actual ties with the school.

Most of the current Sparty fans are too young to remember when they were good for a long time. In contrast most of the Michigan fans who are younger lived through the Bo/Mo/Lloyd era when Michigan was usually very good to great. The much older fans who remember the fallow period between 1949 and 1969 are only a smaller slice of the fanbase and they have lived to see the Wolverines become dominant again.

As a DC, Coach Narduzzi maybe (intentionally or not) missing the real point about the difference between Taylor Martinez and Denard Robinson as running QBs.

We all have seen that both are fast - really fast, but the one area which Taylor Martinez does excel is in his mesh ball fake. It was a huge part of why he was successful against MSU. His ball fake really pulled the DL, LBs and Safeties one or more gaps over which gave him the room to get to full speed. In a match race on a track, I think DR is faster, and because he is smaller and lighter, he would probably take Martinez in a 100 yards or 100 meters. But as a deceptive ball handler, Martinez is demonstrably better than most running QBs today.

It may be a form of neuropraxia - which would be the best case. BUT often these take weeks for a full recovery. We'll see if Denard is able to practice and play this week. If not it may be several weeks and in some cases, 6-8 weeks which essentially is the whole season.

I hope he comes back next week or later in the season but if that was the last game we see him play in a UM uniform, Denard Robinson still had an amazing career and will one day be honored as a Michigan legend.

Clearly too many players are getting their priorities wrong and have been devoting their time and energies to skool and not football. They forget they "ain't there to play skool, but football." No doubt this will be a teaching point this week.

An amazing quote - simple yet profound, innocently assertive and completely honest without any regard to the long term significance. He should win 2012's most honest thing said by an athlete.

That is from the OSU just makes it even better.

Every few years, it seem like it is a time of change in FB.

1. Forward pass.

2. T-formation

3. Split-T, split end

4. Defense with three layers of defenders (DL, LB, DBs)

5. Zone defense and mixed coverages

6. Shot-gun first time around (1950's with the 49er's)

7. Wishbone, triple option

8. 2, 3 deep zone, zone blitz

9. Shot-gun again - aka the Spread

10. Never punting, always kicking onside

11. Wagging plays in (Browns used messenger guards in the 1950's), now someone other than the QB calls the cadence.

12. Wildcat - or the return of single wing and so on

But maybe the game is always evolving. We're just focused on the moment, this game, this season and this coaching regieme that we may not notice that it has always been evolving game.

I know that seems so clearly an interception... but don't count on change coming soon.

If you recall during the last World Cup in South Africa, the ball went across the line and was seen by about 1 billion people but wasn't called a goal, which is simpler than even this decision and yet years later, there is still no procedure in place.

The referees who are working this game - are they regular college referees? Are the usual Big Ten referees already committed? I heard on talk radio that these were from a lower tier but wondered if anyone knew.

Let's look at the options to decide the MNC:

1. Pure "beauty contest" voting - totally subjective by coaches, reporters, members of the academy. Pros: easy to do, allows everyone to maintain their arguments of being jobbed and/or wronge, Cons: totally subjective, sometimes people voting haven't seen the teams play a whole game. We've had this for decades and basically no one was really happy with it.

2. All-play-all: This was the system used by MLB way in the past and still used by many soccer (futbol) leagues like the EPL. Everyone plays everyone else home and away and the team atop the list at the end of the year is the champion. Pros: hard to argue, makes the final weeks really interesting for the contending teams, Cons: by mid-season it is pretty clear which teams are contending and which are just spoilers, timing of the games (or fixtures) is important. Ideally one wants to play the biggest rivals when they are still figuring themselves out or down due to injuries. Opens the door to the argument that the best team at the end of the season isn't the team atop the list. We had this for many years back when the Big10 only had ten teams - you don't hear many arguments that such-and-such team was actually the better team, because they decided on the field. Unfortunately, given the size of Div 1 (~110 teams) no all-play-all scheme could work for any collision/contact sport.

3. Play-Offs: A certain number of the "top" teams either by record or subjective selection play a knock-off system to decide the title. Teams are seeded either by record or subjective selection. Pros: Better than option 1, doable compared to option 2, already used by MLB, NBA, NHL, and NFL in one form or another, allows for teams to improve over the season, recover from early injuries and losses, keeps more teams and their fans interested, Cons: extends the season, allows teams which get "hot" at the end to win the title even if their "total body of work" was just average, seeding and who plays who becomes another subjective minefield (is this 2 or 1 loss team better than this other 2 or 1 loss team?), playoff pathways may not end up with the two best teams facing each other at the end. This is where we are heading. Div 2 and Div 3 are already doing this. The layers of playoffs and the more complex the scheme, the less likely it is for any team, short of a team that is 100% guaranteed of victory, will win the title. Why? Quick back of the envelope calculation. Assume the best team in the field wins 9 out of 10 games played. To win 3 consecutive games in the playoff would crudely mean 0.9 x0.9 x0.9 or 0.73 Since in most years teams would not be fielding a once-in-a-generation squads, a more elaborate play-off scheme is actually favorable; it allows them to advance farther potentially and have a slim but real chance at the MNC. On this basis, a play-off system actually is not detrimental to the chances of the UM. Historically, the teams have usually been above-average and in or around that top 10-15 range with an occasional top 5 team, so a play-off should help, not hurt our chances. The only wild card is if the subjective factor packs the playoff seeding. I don't know how the Div 2 and Div 3 handle this but do the "power conferences" in Div 2 or Div 3 end up with half the seeds?

Offering a young child (who isn't even through puberty yet) a "ride" or "slot" isn't anything new in the world of professional sports training. Kids are scouted this young or younger in futbol (soccer) all over the world and given opportunities to go to futbol academies run in conjunction with a major club (like Real Madrid).

For a university to do so shows they all about building a winning football team - don't know and don't care if the kid is interested in college, or can even read and write.

It is interesting now that the Freeh Report has been released is that one of the salient points is badly missed by the Paterno letter.

When wading through the mass of documents and interviews, one of the conclusions reached by Freeh's team was a surprising disregard about the fate and condition of the kids involved. This detachment is also present in the Paterno letter which doesn't address at all the notion that the kids involved were horribly mistreated.

The key quote is "total disregard for the safety and welfare" of the children who were sexually abused. I only quickly read the Paterno letter which was put out yesterday, but I don't recall any mention about the involved kids. The letter is so focused about reputation that it completely missed the point - that there was a great evil there and that great harm occured. Maybe this absence was due to legal advice to deny any knowledge - note how it ends with the notion that the charges are all "alleged", so the claim of "know nothing" can be preserved but it seems very striking and in light of the Freeh document actually reinforces the point of wanton disregard of the fate of the kids because of fear of how it would hurt their individual and group reputations.

As much as we all adore UM sports and Wolverine football, I'd like to believe no one who is a real fan of the UNIVERSITY will let anyone who is perceived as a big person on campus skate by on anything like this just so we can win a game, a grant, a Nobel prize, an election, etc.or out of fear that it would somehow tarnish the reputation of the school.

I think there was a scence in the movie Chariots of Fire where one of the english sprinters sought out a professional coach, something rare and hush-hush in the 1920 era of "amateur" sports. The coach said something which I think applies - he said something to the effect that sprinters as neurotic because they are essentially bundles of pent up energy.

Not surprised that this is how it turned out - short of them both going, couldn't see anyone accepting it without a scene.

He seems to have a very rational realistic approach.

The factors in his favor:

1. No lack of work ethic or self-motivation.

2. By all public accounts, a good team mate and leader.

3. The modern game seems to have de-emphasized having a big center who attacks from the low post (e.g. Chamberlain, Jabbar, Moses Malone, etc.)

4. Reasonable expectations - he doesn't go into the pro world thinking his time as a Wolverine will roll out a red carpet for him.

5. Style of play abroad - he'll see more zones, the teams try to break and run and have a lot of ball movement; a style which I think favors his type of game and experience as a collegian.

Factors against:

1. Size - probably not as big as he is listed and he never "played bigger" so he might be vulnerable if caught low against a big guard.

2. Speed - a lot of smaller guards make up by being very quick and having a great handle; again something he is OK but not noted for in his time here.

3. Finding the right team and league - it is very dependent on the team and league. Some teams/leagues abroad bring in Americans to supply that attacking spark. They want someone who can elevate and play above the rim or really slash to the hoop - aspects of the game which they can't find or develop locally. Remember that some of these leagues are there to help cultivate and develop talent for their national team. They don't really want to invest time and energy developing role players who are foreigners - they figure they can do that themselves.

While the NBA may have plateaued here in popularity, around the world, it is still very popular. It is starting to resemble soccer (futbol) - the NBA is the top league in the world like La Liga or The Premier League is in futbol. Teams are willing to bring in foreign players but if you look they usually develop their own defenders and defensive mid-fielders; role players. They'll play a premium for attacking mid-fielders and forwards, but outside of the richest teams, rarely spend big bucks and resources on foreign players who don't immediately help the offense, so I hope he finds a team that appreciates what he brings to them.

Good luck and go blue! He'll always be remembered as a great Wolverine even if he never had great stats!

Someday if the regulars here are lucky enough to reach that age, they can explain to future readers of MGoBlog the late 20th and early 21st centuries:

1. Once there was no national championship game and a bunch of people would get together and vote on what team they believed was the best and amazingly this was acceptable.

2. There was once over 100 Division 1 schools playing college football.

3. You saw the first night game at Michigan Stadium. About 1,000,000 people and their descendents now claim to have been at that game.

4. That going to a bowl game actually cost most teams money and the lucky few break even.

5. That the game back then had four downs to go 10 yards.

6. The onside kick was a rarely used play.

7. The stadium was actually originally built using a machine called a steam shovel and that somewhere in the bottom there are the rusty remains of that machine.

8. There was usually only one QB playing at a time and that person threw most of the passes.

9. You saw the throwback uniforms when they were the regular home jerseys.

10. The stadium was all benches all the way to the top before the chair backed seats, the luxury boxes, the second layer of enclosed boxes and the dome with the 70 yard long replay screen or the field on massive pallets so it could be rotated in and out of the stadium.

11. You remember when the band would play classic football music like "Gangster's paradise" and "Don't stop believing" instead of this modern syntho-neo binary rip music.

12. The Heisman trophy was once nearly always given to a player on offense.

Like any complex tale (and one arguably that hasn't really ended yet), the whole story of Tate Forcier and the Wolverines reveals something with each retelling. It can be a story of the flaws of putting athletics over academics. It can be a tale of hubris. It can be a tale of well-intentioned (or well-ambitioned) parenting gone bad. It can be the tale of someone who peaked too early.

Unfortunately he really never understood the value of his UM ties. Years from now, it will be hard to explain to future fans while his freshman year was so memorable; how he captured the imagination of so many and how during September and October of that magical year, it seemed like the Wolverines were the team of destiny.

Please keep up this series.

We now take it for granted the 100,000+ attendance and being part of the 'largest crowd to watch a college football game in the USA." But here was a team that beat OSU and finished the regular season as 11-0 and could NOT sell out every home game.

The writer was trying to point out something that historians have long recognized. When someone is lionized and has statues erected in their honor when they are still living their image risks taking on a life of its own. Thomas Connelly in book "The Marble Man: Robert E. Lee and His Image in American Society", looked at the aura which surrounded Robert E. Lee after the Civil War. The Southern Lost Cause movement and their mythos about Lee left a dead statue and the real person, flaws and idiosyncrasies became lost in the footnotes.

Joe Paterno became a marble man - he was suppose to be flawless, perfect and a paragon. It suited many people to have this happen. The administration benefited from having a national spokesman who helped to raise millions of dollars and attract thousands of students. The athletic department liked his appeal to some long lost era of amateur sports. For a democracy and republic, we've strangely always had an attraction for someone who could be a benevolent ruler - a philosopher king - all knowing, all wise, fair and just. Today, that person must also be telegenic and witty.

It may not have been something he wanted in the beginning but as time went on, being told that one is wonderful and wise is quite seductive - so much so that it is easy to start believing it yourself. When coupled with a fear of what would occur once he stopped coaching it is understandable how easy it is to begin acting as if all of the hype and myth were real. The Sandusky scandal actually revealed two tragedies. First and foremost is that despite the homespun bucolic rustic setting of Happy Valley, there can be horrible evil. The second is that no person should become a marble man, no matter how good the original intention.

As a UM fan we have a little of that here with Bo, but luckily he had the good sense to retire when his powers were waning, being frank about his own shortcomings, and showing a sense of humility. He never thought the football coach was more important than the school president.

There are a few who are fortunate enough to achieve lasting greatness in some aspect of their life - winning a major championship, discovering something or inventing something which alters how all people live or creating something of great beauty which moves people across generations. Even then, it was just one part, one aspect, and shouldn't be mistaken for the whole person - who may have many prickly flaws and shortcomings.

The issue of having a real national football div. 1 championship isn't that hard - the lower divisions do it easily without hardly a peep of complaint. So the mechanistic issues really are all about the entrenched vested monied interests.

Since this is the "hot stove" season for college FB, and we're dreaming, here are some random thoughts on the notion...

1. If you want to have a system that allows for losses early and still have a shot to "play" one's way back use the system called the "Swiss System" - it is the system used to pair teams and players for one on one play when there are lots of players and only a limited number of rounds when a round robin isn't possible. It begins by seeding all of the teams to create the initial draw - so Number 1 plays Number 120, 2 vs 119 and so. In the subsequent rounds similar scores play each other. By round 8, there would be only 1 unbeaten team (after round 1, half the teams are unbeaten, after round 2, only at most 1/4, after round 3 at most 1/8...so after round 7 we've eliminated 128 teams from the unbeaten ranks). That leaves two weeks for the top remaining teams - the unbeaten and a few 1 and 2 loss teams. Pluses: Every week there would be unbeaten teams playing each other until the end. At the end only the very best will be left by record. An early loss isn't critical and allows a team to play one's way back up. And the lower rank teams will have incentive to play because they will be matched up against comparable opposition and playing for seeding next year. Also admittedly it would be a betting bonanza - pairing teams with similar records should help split the betting or make the betting provocative. Negatives: how to divy up the home games fairly and how to manage it with travel would be night mare. But it shows that actually it is possible in theory to play and get a legitimate champion without necessarily playing more games.

2. We'll just have to give it a bit more time - political meddling and money will ultimately sway things. The bowl organizers are clearly motivated by money. There are a lot of politicians who prefer to spend time fiddling around with college football rather than the not so much fun work of running the country (see the various US Senators drawn into the Big 12 - Big East whose in what conference). It won't happen next year but it will happen. Remember when the Fiesta Bowl first started? Then the first BCS? That all took time but it happened so, when the dollars start heading into the 8 and 9 figure range for the total package, we'll see a real playoff.

Tebow is in the news a lot but actually he is only one of two big QB stories this year. I don't mean Cam Newton - who lived up to his hype. He really can play and his ability to run and run with devestating effect should make the Carolina Panthers a team to watch next year.

The other story is Alex Smith at San Francisco. Until Jim Harbaugh showed up, he was a regular top ten member of the Biggest NFL Busts lists. And now the 49ers are in the playoffs.

QBs are very important in the NFL but it is still a team game. There is still defense, special teams, and the running game.

Maybe the take home lesson from this season is that a team can be pretty good in one aspect (e.g. QB) but that won't win a championship. Likewise a team could be weak in one aspect (like the QB) but if it can work around that (play great D, solid special teams, run the ball) - a team can still be a winner.

Looking back, we've actually seen this receipe before here at the U. We've had teams which didn't have a great QB but had a great defense, good running game and solid special teams; these have won the B10.

Chris Tucker is at his most mouthy version short of his so bad its good turn on the "Fifth Element".

Zhang Ziyi looking extra tough - not enough of her in the film and too bad she's chosen to concentrate on more serious drama, because she could actually do all of that martial arts stuff.

Have to politely disagree. Hoke was definitely playing it conservative with three running plays - none of which involved Denard Robinson if I recall and all pretty much designed to keep it in the center of the field. Todd Blackledge in fact predicted the 3rd down play would be a run back to the left after the first two plays headed to the right in order to better center the ball for the FG attempt.

Hoke didn't open up and try to get 10 or 20 yards, just about 5 which he got - a 20 yard line spot + 7 for the placement and 10 for the endzone = 37 yard kick - doable for our kicker. Georgia's head coach error was to not gain any yardage for a kicker whose percentage was very bad from that rang.

The real criticism about game strategy should be aimed at Frank Beamer when V Tech was driving at the end of the 4th Q - he seemed to pull up and played to go into overtime rather than keep pressing and try to score a knockout. When the Wolverines go up 20-17, it looked like there was too much time left - had it been a TD, definitely, but a FG lead looked like V Tech had enough time to come back and score leaving us with a ND UTL situation of only a handful of seconds to come back.

Let's look at the games:

1. Wisconsin was very competitive with Oregon and a "typical" mistake cost them the game - the error in not knowing what can be challenged or not and cost them a time out, the fumble after a great long pass and arguably having to go for a FG taking them to 31 was largely due to Ball slipping on the 2nd down play when they were in deep.

2. MSU showed great heart and came back to beat Georgia when it would have been easy for them to cave. Yes, Georgia made mistakes but these were not flukes.

3. OSU lost to Florida, but they were also in that game and frankly playing for an outgoing coach with all of the distractions they did OK. Strange play calling - when early on they were running the ball well and essentially kept Florida off the field for most of the 2nd quarter.

4. Nebraska - looked like Nebraska we played. They had their moments, but are a one dimensional team. When forced to do more and do it consistently they couldn't do it.

5. PSU - seriously distracted and messed up due to the worst college sports scandal of all time. Worse than the worst gambling scandal. Worse than the worst alcohol or adult sex scandal. And they played that way.

It seemed to be the talking point of so many of the commentators that the "B10 is weak". Yet after looking at the games, Three of the games were winnable and MSU did win. OSU and Wisconsin were within one or two plays from being the victors. Nebraska and PSU were the only ways which look out of sorts but frankly they looked that way all season against the better B10 teams.

Nocera's background as others have noted is from the business side of things, so he is actually a relative newcomer to the whole general/sports/politics columnist Op/Ed position.

Because of his business background it is not surprising that he'd view things from a business angle. (1) He sees the big schools making money from high profile teams and big money TV contracts. (2) He sees that the teams (CFB and MBB) are not paid. (3) So he concludes that the solution is what he proposes. On the pages of the New York Times, many commentators have pointed out the many limitations of his approach which have also been repeated here.

One aspect he and others have consistent missed is that the problem with the current system isn't just the NCAA and its archaic shamateurism rules but the limitation on what the student athletes can study. They can't actually be students of athletics. They can't actually devote their time and energies into developing their professional potential. The athletic grants and tenders are the only form of major aid given for a non-degree granting concentration or program by universities and colleges. If they schools are allowed to develop the talents of the kids fully we'd cut out a lot of problems and solve many of the issues.

1. By allowing training year round with full professional input and participation, players will have a very realistic understanding of the likelihood of a professional career.

2. By having the best training it would make the relationship more equitable and in line with the type of relationship other students have in the fine arts, drama, and music.

3. The lives of artists, actors and musicians are as short and uncertain as that of any athletes, and YET many schools offer full degrees and even advanced degrees in these fields. Why not performace athletics if there is performance voice, Master of Fine Arts of Master of Dramatic Arts degree?

Perceptive observation.

1. PSU needs to sort out the whole presidency issue then AD then the head football coach.

2. If the BOT conducts a nationwide thorough and exhaustive search and lands a coach before the presidency mess is sorted out, it will be a public relations disaster.

3. It would confirm the belief that football was way too important on the PSU campus. It will show the priorities of the BOT are misplaced - they are way too concerned about football and the school as a whole - sort of the whole underlying theme of the whole current scandal.

4. Probably they'll have to run with a bunch of interims while the presidency gets sorted out. Once that is done, look for a rapid series of appointments. It will be one of the new president's earliest actions.

5. All of these "dream coach" names being bandied about like Dungy, etc. - we should know now from our own experience and from the insight revealed in Three and Out that these "dream" coaches aren't going to happen. They are just talk show and internet board fodder.

There is no single parameter which predicts victory outside of the game score. As others noted, the time of position reflects not just defense but the interaction between defense and offense. Each minute is worth roughly two plays, so a four minute difference is a plus/minus 8 plays - or at least one good drive. What is that worth?

A similar effect is seen in basketball. A number of years ago during the "Bad Boys" era, the Detroit Pistons was one of the top defenses in the NBA but many insightful observers noted a key factor was their deliberate play on offense. Simply using most of the time during each possession limited the opposition's chances. At the risk of stirring up the whole RR good/bad right/wrong issue, it may be that the TOP shows how well the offense and defense are in sync with each philosophically. A defensive minded coach which doesn't mind winning 14-3 or 21-17 wants a defense that is hard to score on. So, ideally the offense should hold on the ball for long drives and rarely turn the ball over. See the New York Giants under Parcells during the Super Bowl run. Their offense was not spectacular but their defense was stifling and in the Super Bowl against the Buffalo Bills, the Giants held the ball for 40 minutes; keeping the high powered Bills attack under Jim Kelly off the field for much of the game.

Hoke's offense under Borges isn't as spectacular but is a good fit with his defense - They are off the field in general quickly and don't give up that many big plays or scores (not perfect but better).

On the other hand if one wants to play a hyperactive offense like the Oregon Ducks, coaches should look not just at their offense but their defense. They take chances and try to create the equivalent of an offensive big play - sending players on run blitzes or slants in hope of "blowing up" a play and creating a really bad down and distance. A riskier defense which might create turnovers, blow up the other teams plays and keep up that hyperactive intense atmosphere is a good fit with that offense; it might give up a big play but if the offense is scoring it is good gamble.

It is reasonable to conclude that the transfer of Dayne Crist to Kansas is occuring largely if not solely because he will have a better opportunity to be the starting QB on the football team and because he may have a better rapport with the head coach, Charlie Weis.

Clearly playing football and being a starting QB is very important to him and outweighs the other aspects of the schools. Yet, we still have a lot of archaic rules about transferring and eligibility. Let's look at it from another standpoint - what if Dayne Crist wasn't a QB but a theoretical physics major. He goes to ND expecting to study string theory under the famous professor XYZ. After he enrolls he finds that professor XYZ is leaving to be the new chair at another school and the new professor is a string theory critic. No one would find it odd for him to transfer to the new school to continue his studies under professor XYZ.

1. The top players view their sports careers and training just like the students look at their degrees and concentrations.

2. Why should they be penalized for moving to the places they believe (right or wrong) may help them further their sports ambitions.

3. After any leadership change, any school should offer to release its players.

Great choice of images and smooth fusion. Show it to a non-football fan, and they'll probably think it is an odd Christmas card from some guy who is cat crazy. Awesome!

JUB's comments about the defense are interesting; answers some questions but stirs up more. It is notable that he stressed that he was really originally planning to be attached for a few months and most importantly didn't see ahead of time that problems with the defensive side would become a major story line.

It sounds like he pretty much hung around RR and didn't get much rapport with the defensive coaches. Nor was he putting that much effort into that part of the story. As fans and with hindsight, we all have questions in our minds about how the defense was prepared, what were the game plans, how were personnel package decisions made, etc. All of the fine details and minutia of each game would be fascinating to us. But JUB is just one person, and although he had the proverbial "total access" he probably hung around the HC and followed the hot story for general fans - the new HC and his adjustment and the amazing run on offense. Only pretty serious FB fans want to hear about the arguments and debates about when to blitz, and who should be in what package.

Ultimately the book as much as we as UM fans may think otherwise, the book's general appeal isn't about football alone. Were it a pure football book, we'd hear a lot more about game plans, analysis, post-mortem discussions, and personnel decisions - who moved up and down. Rather the theme was what happened to a guy who finally got the dream job in his profession but walked into a situation where there are a lot of legacy traditions and various power bases; he didn't handle that well or wasn't given a fair chance (your choice) and the job ended up being a nightmare.

Maybe this will be covered in the future parts, but how much did the editors help shape the focus on the book - less pure football and more about dream job gone bad and dealing with existing legacies and traditions?

Now that it is an established story line, anyone covering RR out in Arizona probably will have "how well does the defense play" on the top three topics to watch for in the upcoming season.

Enjoy it - until Carr, Moeller, Miles, Martin, Brandon, MSC, or RR write their version, this is what we got. Like other UM notables, there isn't any other work out there that addresses such issues in this depth. It would be great to learn about what happened during all of the Notre Dame coaching changes. Or what happened at Alabama during the Shula-Price-Saban transition or exactly why Saban left LSU or the Nebraska Callaghan-Solich-Pelini transition. Or the story behind the USC-UT Lane Kifflin journey.

As an old fogey (far side of 50) I understand the students and the band want to hear music they like - so I understand they want to play what is popular now. But music is not written or created in a vacuum, nor are music groups. A classic symphony is assembled to ideally perform classical music so the instrument composition reflects this. A marching band was originally created to play marching music - an civilian offshoot of martial music. So it is far from ideal to play music created to be played by electric guitar or synthesizer. If the Marching Band and the music directors insist on playing contemporary hits (esp. rap and such) then they'll have to work on their arrangements and figure out how to get the theme/melody out from a marching band. It wouldn't hurt once a year to play something from Sousa.

The piped in music needs to be controlled carefully - it is actually against the rules to continue to play music when the game resumes. The current operator seems to cut it very close - during the Nebraska and OSU game, the music should cut off once the teams break huddle but there wer a few times, it wasn't and was still on during a quick snap. This could be flagged and is completely preventable.

The scoreboard is huge but the operators still don't stats and other info regularly. With so many TV commercial breaks, just flashing it up for 15-30 seconds shouldn't be that difficult.

Food is never going to be "great" and hot dogs, burgers, fries and such will always dominate. The power that be probably worry more about sanitation and safety (from fires, scalds and burns) than actual taste.

Not sure if the PSD mailing is staggered depending on the seats, so you might take that into account. I live in Washtenaw County so maybe it is mail issue, but I got mine weeks ago. In fact there was an error in how they calculated some stuff and they had to issue a second note - got a phone call from them about this - (this was for some chair back seats). Hope this helps.

It might actually be better to try to pay on-line or if the deadline allows, wait until after the Christmas mail surge.

The DII and DIII have a true playoff system. This year's run by Wayne State is of particular interest because they just got into the system and have played all of their playoff games on the road. It shows that the current combination of a beauty contest - reputation based ranking system has a lot of flaws.

It also shows that why the system is so hard to change. All of these schools and games are smaller with lesser budgets so the money involved is not huge. No one is opposing the playoff at these levels because the parties have rough parity and the amounts of money involved are small.

Probably some students at UConn or Rutgers will try to hit all of the "Big East" stadia during their undergraduate years.

Three and Out is an interesting book. Not ideal but probably as close we can expect short of a tell-all by RR or Lloyd Carr (don't hold your breath on either one). Your summary is excellent and hits most of the major points.

Most interesting are what the little details implied:

1. As you note - MSC open rejection of Martin's stipulation to RR about keeping the existing coaching staff showed that she understood better how these coaching changes are done - not great but better than Martin. It is rare for the past group of assistants to be kept on en masse.

2. In the book when asked to list who would be a good future UM coach, Martin's first choice was Tony Dungy. While, Dungy is clearly an admirable figure in football and very successful in the NFL as well as coming from Michigan, there has never been any indication that he wanted to return to coaching let alone college football. This is another example that Martin really had only a faint feel for what was happening in college football over the past 10-15 years. It reminds me of the scene in the Simpsons when Montgomery Burns tries to create a team of ringers to win a softball game. ("Homer at Bat": Burns wants Honus Wagner on third, Cap Anson on first and 'Three Fingers' Brown at his lead pitcher - all long dead)

3. The athletic department is pretty much run as a nearly independent entity so long as there is no trouble. There is a lot of free reign given to it - probably a legacy of Bo's tenure as AD. When the president had to step in, it was a very bad sign of how messed up things were.

4. As a fan and not a rabid one (I wouldn't go out of my way to go to a M-club meeting or to hear the HC speak at lunch) it was still surprising to hear that RR didn't reach out to the super fans until literally the 11th hour. Many other fans probably assumed as I did that he was making the rounds and just didn't click.

5. There is strangely little said about the weaknesses on defense. What did RR really thick was happening? What did he do with Greg Robinson to help improve things? There is very little discussion about this key aspect of his time here. ? Does Bacon's silence on this matter reflect a lack of information, that it was thought too dry and technical, or was it aimed at the players. There is a sense that Bacon feels badly for RR as a person who got what we wanted in life and found that rather than being a dream it was a nightmare. The other sense was that he felt a lot sympathy for the players who were often just as likely to the target of the same vitriol aimed at RR.

An interesting book and worth your time.

Dear Mathlete,

Thanks for a great entry. I really enjoy reading them.

Two thoughts and I apologize if you had addressed them earlier in a previous post.

1. Plays not made are also important but are much harder to quantify. In the OSU game everyone saw that Posey was wide open at the end and had Braxton Miller not overthrown him he probably would have scored leaving the Wolverines with about 1:30 to win the game. Assuming they would start from the 20 they would have to get down at least under the OSU 30 to have a confident field goal attempt. Certainly not impossible and after the ND game UTL we know that miracles do happen. But that single play would have change the possible outcome from a high UM probability to a pretty good OSU probability. Those aren't factored in. Plays not made are always going to be tough. In the 1997-1998 Rose Bowl Charles Woodson was within a hair's breadth of sacking Ryan Leaf several times but it didn't happen. Had that happened the game wouldn't have been as close. Is it possible for you run a simulation of what the odds would be if Posey had scored? If you are familiar with computer chess programs look at Fritz (by Chessbase) it provides a similar analysis of who is "ahead" in the game and one can see graphically in much the same way you depict where the critical turning point occured. It has one huge advantage in that it can analyze the alternative lines of play.

2. Which leads to the second point and suggestion. Others have also noted that time and situation affect the effect of any individual play. Any single play doesn't exist in isolation. Failing to gain yardage on 2nd down leading to 3rd and long is a common example. What I'm curious is about is whether your analysis can shed light on the relative value of points and leads during the game. In the Nebraska and OSU games the visitors scored first but they did so very early on the game. So one could surmise that a +7 score for a team with  50 some minutes of time isn't crucial. Being +1 with 0:30 might be conclusive unless the ball is within easy field goal range for your opponent. The thought occurred that it might be another way of looking at how well a defense plays. A great defensive team could hold a small +lead over a longer period of time than a poor one. In traditional football terms, the great defense needs only to be ahead to win most of the time and not two scores or three scores. Is that calculable? I suspect this season our defense would do well. We took the lead in the 3rd quarter and while OSU did score another 10 points, we never trailed.

Again a great diary and hope that you'll keep it going!

To say the bowls is unfair to parasites and bowl games.

Both serve useful functions.

Parasites can take down the mightiest of creatures so long as there are enough of them. The social analogy would be corruption. Enough corruption ultimately collapses any system even a very wealthy one.

Bowl games are a legacy of the early years of college football. It helped to nuture and develop the sport and fan interest. But now it is like a vestigial tail that won't go away. Should there be a playoff? Yes. Are the bowl committees standing the way of a playoff? Yes. An anarchronistic remnant of football's evolutionary past, but not a parasite.

Too many coaches believe the hype that "big time" college coaches are now "stars" and want to be treated that way. Sticking around in one place and building up a lot of tradition and greating a legacy may not interest them. On the other hand... maybe they have good reason to jump when they can. As someone on the far side of 50 years of age, I may have a different perspective than someone who is young and just starting out on their career.

It is actually understandable why many would jump for the cash and try to make a huge payday deal when they can. Look at Brady Hoke's own history. He went from being an aspiring Secret Service agent (when Ronald Reagan was shot) to grad assistant and then a coach at a small school, a bigger school and even bigger school before ultimately landing his dream job here.

How many other grad assistants were in this same situation with Michigan ties who didn't have his pathway here? There are only 100 some D1 HC jobs. It is easier to get a neurosurgery job, at least in terms of sheer number of possible openings.

How many fellow coaches has he seen who ended up at the end out of coaching and having dragged their families around the coaching world hoping to hook up with the guy who could get him to his next job and the next rung up? Guys like Rich Rod, Brady and others know what they are getting into and so do their spouses. I do feel a lot of sympathy for the kids (like Rich Rod's kids who were hauled out in front of another press conference last week).

It is not an easy life. Guys like him, Rich Rod, and all of the others deserve some recognition for their sheer determination. Not everyone ends up as well as Coach Borges and Mattison who did this journey and at some point must have had HC ambitions as well. They made peace with their dreams and professional lives and I think accept that they'll be lifelong assistants. But I'm sure when they sit down and talk over the past and look at the old staff photos from all of their stops they'll have a list of many guys who also were hooked on football but who didn't have the breaks, luck and skill they had and so ended up with not much to show for all of their years in football.

So Edsall may have made a bad choice in some ways and it may be the end of his career as a football HC, but for his family and their financial security it may have been a great decision.

Your point is well taken about the Chop House which is pricier, but the aim isn't the best value for your steak dinner dollar. It is about ambience and trying to impress the recruits.

Many locals prefer Knight's which is usually crowded and more of a family atmosphere for a post-game steak. You may not be able to get seated until late however due to the crowds. And if Brady Hoke showed up with a gaggle of recruits he'd probably couldn't do much socializing with them because there would be so many people coming up to congratulate him or ask for autographs or photos.

He might be also recruiting other people besides players. Maybe he is looking to add to his staff. Although it would seem unlikely he'd mention it if it weren't just future possible players.

Good for Coach RR!

I wish him well. While he didn't bring us what many had hoped, he did bring in some great players - such as Denard Robinson and many of the younger players who look pretty good right now (with the benefit of great coaching). The two ND victories and that crazy game with Illinois sort of summed his time with us for me. Amazing offense, no defense.

A lot of future post material....

1. Possible UM versus ASU matchups (Rose Bowl and elsewhere)

2. ASU versus Big Ten.

3. Following his progress out there and his relationships with the media, alumni and university.

4. The type of staff he assembles. It will be interesting to see who he gets for DC and what type of defense he runs. Will his defense be better than what he took over?

5. Will his ASU teams reflect his experiences here?

6. There are now two more teams to follow - Ron English and Mike Hart at EMU and RR at ASU.

After the Nebraska game and again hearing it directly from the players, especially on defense, it should be clear that the new coaching staff have a tremendous positive. What we are seeing on the field was always possible but the new team of Hoke, Borges and Mattison really brought it out.

The team is actually improving as the season progresses.

Go Blue!

To be fair to the poster, one would expect as a team gains more experience, gets physically more mature and stronger, parts of the defense should be expected to improve. A sophomore should be better than the freshman. The junior should be better than the sophmore and the senior should be better than the junior. This is seen in many individual sports so long as the player doesn't plateau. Each year the personal best times/performances improves.

Players with an extra RS year should take that one step further. So it is not unreasonable to expect if a team starts a lot of freshmen and sophomores to see it improve the following two years.

But as others have also noted, the degree of improvement is much greater than what can be rationally expected to be attributable to this natural "aging and maturing" effect.

Likewise, it is a fair statement that some of our opposition may have taken a step backwards compared to past years. All of the numbers aren't in, but the improvement overall in terms of scoring, yards yielded and relative rank in the league and the whole of D1 can't be laid to this process. Otherwise we should see a cycling of defenses every few years as teams age and mature to their peaks. We don't see that typically happening - because coaching has an effect.

It is interesting that despite all that has happened the "fire Ron Zook" movement isn't that strong. To his credit he does have victories over every Big Ten team except for Nebraska. But despite having had individual stars on both offense and defense he hasn't been able to lead Illinois to the next tier. But evidently it is good enough for Illinois.

This was a great game for the defense and the most complete.

The past 3 years were tough on the kids, and this year's success even it ends up at 8-4 shows that the effort was there - they just needed better coaching.

The sky might collapse and the Wolverines might end the season at 7-5 or the same magic could strike them like early in the season and they could close out at 10-2.

Regardless, these two coordinators show a lot of skill in how they handle their press conferences. Their video should be shown as examples to younger coaches on how to relate with the press and fans. Have to address obvious questions and concerns (e.g. rollout at the goal line) and not duck questions. No dumping on the kids. No blaming all on bad referring.

Since this issue is of professional interest, here is some background.

Helmets are a legacy piece of equipment. Leather was the one durable, cleanable, and practical material of its day to create some form of protection. This was back in the day when kids were literally splitting their scalps and skulls open during games and dying from their "cracked skulls". The Forward Pass, 7 men on the line of scrimmage, and no player heading towards the line of scrimmage before the snap are all other examples designed to make the game safer and save lives.

There are two organizations which set standards for helmets: ASTM (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ) and NOCSSAE (National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment). Their testing standards are pretty basic and resemble the drop test or weight pendulum tests for overall rigidity and resilience. The modern understanding about the risks of concussion, neck flexion protection and such are all pretty much unregulated. Likewise most of the other equipment commonly used like shoulder pads, hip pads and other forms of pads are basically not regulated. There are no published standards. The so-called flak jackets or rib protectors for example are not subject to any standardized testing. Unless they are actually designed to stop bullets or flying metal (e.g. military or security use specifications) they are all unproven. This issue comes up when a kid comes in and has only one working kidney. Is it safe for that kid to play? Does wearing one of these so-called "kidney pads" help? Or does it hinder by giving a false sense of security? Protective cups are also unregulated - so this question comes up also with kids with only one testicle. Statisitically research through trauma databases and other large pooled records show that actually losing a kidney or testicle from actual play (not other goofing around) is very low but not zero. Every decade or so a kid will be hit just right and fracture the kidney. Studies from other sports like Australian Rules football or rugby do show some differences but it isn't all happiness and rainbows. See Lawson JS et al. Medical Journal of Australia, "Catastrophic injuries to the eyes and testicles in footballers." vol. 163: 242-244, 1995. It notes over a 16 year period of time that 15 players lost 90-100% of vision in one eye, and 14 had major testicle injuries with 11 losing a testicle. Direct deliberate actions (flagrant fouls) like eye gouging, kicks and such were a significant cause.

Finally in other sports, soccer does have standards for shin guards, so while there is plenty of controversial over hacking, faking and diving, for the most part the protective benefits are not in dispute.

I really hope it works out for him but he is making a poor choice.

There are many examples of someone who transfers and does well and ends up in the NFL: Cam Newton, Randy Moss, Ryan Mallet, Troy Aikman, Glenn Davis...but they are mostly really good QBs or other skill players with clear cut talent. ? Any DBs ever make this type of jump?

With the way teams play multiple WR sets, there are not just 4 DB slots but actually 6 or 7 spots: nickel, dime and first sub.

Did he think he wasn't in the top 6 DBs? WIth Kovacs going down and uncertain when he'd be back, he should expect to see some playing time.

Finally, this is really where coaching and advisors can only do so much. I hope that most of the team has a realistic understanding of the likelihood of playing pro ball. A Michigan degree with networking with Michigan alumni is worth a lot.

Just finished "Three and Out" and it is worth reading. It isn't "Season on the Brink", "Education of a Coach" or "Our Boys" nor is it "Friday Night Lights", but is pretty interesting.

There is one small factual error which die hard Michigan falls should catch. On page 318 in the chapter "Eleven as One", the brilliant run of DR against Notre Dame in 2010 is described - but erroneously describes him as starting from the IRISH 13. He was on the MICHIGAN 13 - allowing him to make that 87 yard burst for a TD.

For now this is the closest most of us will come to ever knowing what happened behind the scenes. Unless Martin, Brandon, Coleman or Carr write about this time in the future, we may never know much more.

The book should be read by anyone who is stepping into a large managerial job laden with tradition and legacies. Developing relationships with the many factions and powers is part of that job.

Winning more and winning more against certain teams would have probably saved RR. But if he had a better relationship with the various power groups, he probably would have gotten another year.

Doubt very much that we'd ever see something like this come out of other FB powers. Does anyone for a nanosecond believe we'll ever learn anything close to the truth about Tresslgate?

This is a tricky line.

It may well be that he heard something that RR was planning to say that caused his own internal warning alarm to go off and scream silently "Don't say that!". But if he had stepped in and influenced RR (1) he might not have prevented things and (2) would have completely changed the dynamic of their relationship. He would have become a media advisor rather than a member of the media. Sometimes crossing the line is necessary - is it more important to cover a story or save a life. Would you keep recording someone who is in the act of falling from a burning building or would you help pull the person to safety? The former action might win  the Pulitzer prize but the latter is undoubtedly the right thing to do.

This line is very confusing in sports because the so called sports media actually do both. Look at the typical football show. The on-camera people show highlights, report the scores and give analysis but also interject themselves into the story by calling for personnel changes, asking for coaches or players to apologize or explain themselves or offering opinion on what should be done rather than limiting their actions to reporting on what happened.

The old print media differentiated between reporters and columnists or opinion writers. These are all blurred together.

I've read through most of the new book and it seems clear that Bacon does like RR as a person and actually feels a bit sorry for him. RR is one of the few people who actually had his lifelong dream come true, only to see it blow up in his face. He also makes it very clear how nasty many college coaching jobs can be.

It was a tough loss, but strange to admit, unless other losses in the Big Ten where the Wolverines were clearly overmatched, they were very competitive and arguably played well enough that barring a few plays, they could have been the winners. Don't have that sense of unease about a collapse like last year.

I know someone might bring up that old saying, close only matters in horseshoes and hand grenades, but in this case, it matters a lot. The team didn't fold up and stayed active. We'll now see if they bounce back sharp and hard in the Purdue game.

MST3k's mixture of adulation, snarking, and clever comebacks was just a bit ahead of its time. At some point, someone could do something similar but not with movies, but with sports related video - like training films, clips from games, press conferences, etc.

Joel, Mike Nelson, the bots (especially Tom Servo and Crow T Robot) are all out there at Rifftrax and Cinema Titanic.

The U is a huge institution and the effect of these changes will not be felt uniformly.

Here are some of the factors listed:

1. A decline in the sheer numbers of people in the typical college age demographic.

2. Rising costs of running places like the U.

3. Rising cost of tuition.

4. Growing feeling that the cost of an education is not always worthwhile in a very basic tangible way (i.e. earning power later in life)

5. Competittion from other so-called "non-traditional" venues - like the University of Phoenix and others which emphasize on-line teaching.

Effect on the U:

1. Though not quite as steep as some other schools where only 5% of the applicants are accepted, the U turns away thousands of kids each year. It has a lot of kids who want to come here and that will probably be that way for another generation and a half (call it 40 years). As others have noted, enrollment in colleges which are linked with professions or prepare for later professions will probably stay strong. The pure classic humanities like English and history will probably take the biggest hit. The era where someone could earn a degree in the Classics or philosophy and then walk into a job on the business world pretty much died out in the 1960's and peaked in the 1940's. It wasn't as big news then because the academic institutions were expanding and the economy was better so more families tolerated their kids earning degrees which had little practical value. Today, the question of "what are you going to do with a degree in X" is the number one thing on a lot of family's minds. We might see a bit of grade inflation by some colleges and courses to try to keep their numbers up. We might see some efforts to show that these courses have relevance in teaching "people how to think critically." These are all common ploys being used today. It is hard to predict the full effects - there will probably be fewer tenure track slots in these classic humanities slots and more post-docs in these areas might try to find a hook into some contemporary issue. Consider during the Vietnam War era, there was a splurge in activity looking at the American Revolution. A few clever American Historians were able to point out how the US and British situations had notable parallels.

2. The U is honestly a great place to work. The benefits are good and the atmosphere is fun so if there are some cut backs (inevitable) we'll still have a lot of people willing to tough it out.

3. Rising cost of tuition is going to be a big issue. Though the U doesn't depend heavily on the State of Michigan for funding, it will always have to be sensitive to this issue if only for public relations reasons. This is where the famous alumni and famous students (everyone from Larry Page, Madonna, Mike Wallace, Sid Meier, Charles Woodson, etc. etc.)  who may have only spent some time here and left, and things like the athletics help. It helps build that network of alumni and friends; that brand recognition. We might see more international students because we excel in many of the fields coveted abroad (engineering, the natural and physical sciences, biomedical health topics) and those students are typically cash or fully funded.

4. This issue is probably going to be the wild card. There are a lot of jobs which require training and experience but don't need a college degree. While some have attributed this as an effect of the rising costs some of it comes from the nature of our society which is less rigid and less class oriented than others. Social mobility is easier and there is more respect to people who do something well even if it involves using their hands and a bit of dirt. The book "The Millionaire Next Door" illustrated this point well.

5. The competition from places like the U of Phoenix is real, but not a total threat. For a lot of young people, going off to college is a physical act of transformation. It is that first big step into adulthood and so doing it online at home isn't as appealing. Going out there, making your own decision and suffering the consequences is part of that experience, were it all just about learning a course syllabus and passing a certain number of tests, a LOT of kids wouldn't go!

This season does feel different than the last 5-0 season. Defense is palpably better, kicking game is better, offense is effective and interesting more diverse.

Break the season down into three miniseasons:

Part 1: WMU, ND, EMU, SDSU - a bit of luck and sheer magic was involved in beating ND, but ND is arguably not that strong; our magic was stronger on that amazing night. WMU and EMU were outclassed. SDSU can play and would be competitive against the other teams in mini-season part 1. The defense still gave up a lot of yards, but with each game, it got tighter and more robust. It was also getting turnovers which were lacking over the last several seasons. The offense looked creaky and seemingly all the good stuff was from the same playbook of last year. 

Part 2: incomplete, Minn, NW, MSU, Purdue - Minnesota is obviously not a strong team, but the complete domination suggests that the defense is really better, and the offense showed a lot of new looks, and plays AND the players executed them well. Did you notice that Kovacs wasn't a leading tackler in the Minn game?  That is a strong positive sign.Last year, the team could beat other teams with a great offensive show, but DR would be 90% of that. Today, how many carries did he have? He passed well when he was asked to, but really didn't have to do that much - a really good sign. The defense made 3 and out stops regularly and pressured the QB without having to blitz. The next three games will decide the course of the season. Is the great upward trend on defense going to continue?

Part 3: to come, Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, OSU - if the defense is in the middle of the pack in terms of scoring and rushing yards yielded, these are all competitive games.

Go Blue!

After having seen 4-0 and 5-0 starts most Wolverine fans can be a little hesitant if not skeptical to declare any major improvements in the defense until the Big 10 season starts. By the standard of whether we won or lost the game, at this point in the season, the defense is the same. If one uses other statistical parameters like yards yielded, it still has major issues. YET having acknowledged all of these concerns, the verdict is probably YES that the defense is better - the positive turn over ratio, fewer penalties and seemingly fewer blown coverages are all positive trending signs. The best sign is as you noted, the noticeable improvement and adjustment during each game. We all wish the defense would be like a wall from the first series, but it is heartening that it seems to get better with each successful series. Maybe that is something from Mattison NFL background where making adjustments and realizing what is happening during the game may be more important (just speculating).

Special teams are harder to assess. Hagerup hasn't played. Gibbons has not been put into any real pressure situations except making the PATs in the ND game.

Since you also mentioned the Illinois game, it is OT but is Nathan Scheelhasse adapting to throwing better than DR? DR is clearly the more explosive player, but throwing the ball, Scheelhasse seems more comfortable.

The Grantland article is interesting. It makes several strong points:

1. A well run system (that is using the football cliched, "well executed") can be successful even if there are only a limited number of possibilities.

2. At lower levels of play - where the physical variation is less (where you don't find that many players who are 300+ lbs or who can fly 40 yards in 4.3 seconds, or 250 pounders who can do a 4.5) coaching and execution can be very important.

3. But just as there is no perfect play, there is no perfect scheme or system. In the old wishbone, it became recognized that tackling the QB and often the pitch man was critical. In the original shot gun (see the 1950's 49ers of the NFL) pressuring and hitting the QB/TB was the key. These ideas work because as one of the coaches noted, the defenses they face don't have the time to work with the defenders so that they are comfortable with dealing with these sorts of offenses - but as we saw with the old original wishbone, I-bone, veer, broken wishbone, etc., defenses given time and experience can compensate. Look at our spread offense under the past regimen, in some games it worked well, in others, it blew up, especially if the opposing defenses dominated the line and had quick LBs and safeties.

4. Back to the chicken and egg dilemma - does the system work because of great execution or great players - or both. Against competition where there isn't a great variance in physical ability then practice may make perfect, but once you have players who could blow up your system having someway to counter them becomes important.

Finally, the title speed chess is a bit of misnomer. Speed chess typically refers to a game of chess where each side has only 5 minutes or less to complete the whole game. It is regarded by many chess fans as a measure of pure chess reaction and raw skill, because one's instinct or instinct honed by experience is critical as most top speed players play within a few seconds. Rather than lesser players dominating due to sheer speed and luck, speed chess however typically has seen very strong players dominate - the greats in classical time limit chess (40 moves in 2.5 hours for each player, so a single game could take 5 hours) like Bobby Fischer, Gary Kasparov, Tigran Petrosian, Vladimir Kramnik, and the current wunderkind Magnus Carlson are also killers at speed - they see more and deeper at greater speed.

See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5918

They see in one look more than other grandmasters see in 10 minutes. This would be like a traditional pro-I power house crushing teams while running their same playbook but at a no-huddle pace.

We've seen that before with Da Bears and Da Bulls....

But seriously, Michigan Stadium is an unique venue, so playing football away from there for a home game really isn't a plus. (1) There is no game history like there was in the Chicago game where once in the past, games were regularly held - back in the heyday of Red Grange, didn't Illinois play at Soldier Field? (2) The place isn't superior in its own history...Michigan Stadium trumps Comerica park easily....

If the Big 10 were to add a East Coast team, and the game were held at Yankee Stadium, yes, I could see that - that stadium has also quite a long history, not exactly the house that Ruth built, but still a storied place.

They couldn't really say that much but seemed pretty honest for these sort of public discussions.

I was born in 1961 so I'm up there in age, so take my perspective with that in mind.

1. It is a LOT louder - so much so that I was tempted to yell "Turn down that music". The amplifiers are all up in the columns so if you are sitting higher up you'll definitely hear it.

2. Down low, the crowd noise really funnels down, so when the team was driving towards the north endzone and the student section side, it was a solid wall of noise.

3. The new displays are really amazingly clear and sharp. The criticisms are valid to some degree - need to display down and distance, time outs left and some basic stats better - and more often. I know it is cute to have pictures of people enjoying the game, but I'd rather see some stats at that point.

4. The displays just need work and the powers that be need to figure out what to show and how to best display it. Think of it like a webpage - there is a lot of space on a typical monitor screen - and often a few basic layout changes can make a huge difference.

5. Rather than just complain, here are some solutions. If I were athletic czar:

a. More stats, more often. First downs, rushes/rushing yards, pass completion/attempts/yards, time outs left, total yards, would be the basic set. Be sure to put this up during change of possession, end of each quarter.

b. Clearly show down and distance - give up a strip along the top or bottom  for this purpose.

c. Turn down the rock music at pre-game to a decibel level under commercial jet engine level. One of the signs of being old is not knowing what the popular music is and not caring that you don't know. So I know the kids like to hear pop music played by the band and probably the band likes to play those pieces, but that music was not written for a marching band. It was written for a combo with guitars, and synthesizers. Either play more marching band music (there are a lot of possibilities here) or get better arrangments.

d. Continue to show public service announcements and weather reports. Add traffic maps or traffic flow diagrams - especially when some streets are coverted completely to one-way - it helps new visitors understand what is happening.

e. Move the paid announcements to appear on the big screen or at least half of the big screen. They charge $250 for those - right now that little telex strip at the bottom just isn't worth the price.

f. Show the lyrics for the Victors, The Yellow and Blue and the Star Spangled Banner when they are played, so that more people can sing along.

Coach Robinson may have put himself into a untenable position. Even if we acknowledge all of these mitigating factors which others have listed (number of players, player quality, loss due to injuries, graduation, transfer, failure of some players to develop) the two years were disappointing because of the response. Yes, he was dealt a bad hand, a terrible hand, no aces and sometimes only a lousy pair. But even given all of these reasonable points, what really hurt for many fans was the appearance of taking the same approach as one would if the defense were competitive and just needed a tweak here and an adjustment there. The defense was clearly not as good as it had been in years past and the level of personnel and performance was low enough that most coordinators would have to take the position that just showing up, rolling the ball out there and letting them play would not remotely have a chance of working.

Would blitzing have saved RR's job? Would it have won more games? Probably not, the breakdowns were pretty significant, but it really hurt the perception by not trying these options. To borrow from other sports - in tennis, if you are an average pro and you are facing Nadal or Federer, you won't have a chance just going out and keeping the ball in play, you have to take chances with junk balls, moon balls, drop shots, serving and coming in behind a second serve, or chipping and charging the return. In chess, if you are an average grandmaster versus Kasparov, Anand or Carlson, you'll have to take a risk in a double edged position where a single slip could turn the game in your favor. In poker, if you are playing against a top pro, playing slow and tight all night will get you worn away. You have to take a shot here and there and be deliberately erratic - you won't be able to out calculate the odds and card distributions and have to play up the uncertainty - it is the one factor which you have as good chance as the top pro.

Denard Robinson is certainly deserving of wearing No. 1. He has both excelled as a player and set up a good example as a Michigan team member.

Numbers should be kept active so each year, it can be discussed if anyone is deserving of the honor. It  will also give us all the opportunity to remember the great players who wore that number in the past.

To be a head football coach at a famous program is about more than the coaching the team.

For the assistants it can be just about the x's and o's, schemes, scouting and recuriting.

For the head coach, the job comes with a lot of other stuff. First and foremost he has to win. Second, he has to stay legal. Third he has to be sure he is solid on all the other aspects: alumni, administration, community. Coach Rodriguez didn't win enough, stayed legal, but really tripped up with the alumni, administration and community.

When people play the retrospective game and wondered what if, the real decision was when he decided to look at the UM job. Had Coach Rodriguez stayed at WVU and finished out his career there he might be thought of as their Bo. He was the guy who put them back into national prominence. He'll definitely get another HC job but he'll know he'll have to pay attention to other things.

An underlying theme was to remember that everyone involved are people and should deserve some compassion. I applaud Brian for this noble sentiment, but realistically this is only going to get harder. The amounts of money involved and the passions stoked up by 24 hour cable/internet makes that unlikely. We'll probably not see any long serving HC because everyone goes through a bad patch (even Bo was 6-6) and today and the foreseeable future, there will be someone stoking up a "dump name xx" campaign whenever that happens.

Great post and looking forward to the season.

Congratulations on the new post.

By the way, when do you have time to do all of this? A MD/PhD program stuff is pretty stiff - do you do your PhD prelim stuff first, then the basic science years of the MD with a thesis followed by the clinical years? Or do you defer your final thesis project until you are done with your MD. I'm curious because you have to fit in the USMLE exams in there somewhere.

Again, congrats

Thank you for writing this.

I know that this really dates me to an era when there were vinyl records, black and white TVs and only 3 TV stations nationally, but it is matter of style. The greatest players of the past, regardless of their sport were as determined and egoistically as anyone who is playing the game today. They all sought to be successful and drove themselves and often their team mates mercilessly. But it was also the style at the time to be self-effacing and humble in public, to never to be seen crying out for attention - that was to be seen as a publicity hound or showboater. Some of the change is due to the nature of pro sports - the real money is paradoxically not on the field, it is in off-field endorsement, so fame and popularity does count. So it is fine balance being a good team mate and cultivating a "good guy" image so when success comes on the field, it can yield huge bookings in off-field endorsements. If one is successful on the field but don't come across as a endorsement hound, you'll often do better because the few endorsements will be big ones.

Calling for your own statue and your own number to be retired just makes me sad. It makes me sad to think the greats turn out to be like us, yearning desparately to be loved and wanting attention and public displays of affection. It is actually sort of passe since with modern video and film, one can actually see the greats play. Does Bill Russell, certainly as great a player in his time and certainly a great influence on the modern NBA game, need to call for a statue? Why just a statue? Isn't it considered enough to be mentioned in the very short list of the greatest players of all time? Does it have to be a big shiny geegaw thing? Those people who saw Michael Jordan play at his best don't need a statue to remind them that they saw an amazing player, just as anyone who ever saw Barry Sanders break a long run knows they witnessed something miraculous. We'll probably be watching replays of DR's run against ND decades from now. So long as we have video replay, these greats have really achieved a form of immortality.

It is a better move not to remove a number from circulation, but to honor those who wore that number by only having the very best players wear it - those who can rise to the challenge of wearing that number. That is the best way to keep the memory alive of the great Wolverines players of all time.

Too much is made of this physical rating. Having talented and skillful players is very important. But like rough diamonds, there is a lot of polishing which needs to be done before you have a real star. Talent and skill often means physical tools AND a lot of hard work. At each level (high school - college - pro) there are players who won't do the other stuff after the "AND" and so plateau or drop out.

Remember that we didn't actively recruit Tom Brady until he and his dad pushed around a tape of him. He is a great example - talent and ability, but his greatest "skill" was the willingness to work at being better. Another example, Charles Woodson - a great prospect, but even he was made better with great coaching. Finally, look at Mike Hart - on paper he wouldn't have a chance of beating out any of the other backs signed during his year or later, yet he's the ALL time rushing leader. He was smaller and slower than the other backs who looked like the ideal prototype RB - yet they couldn't displace him. He rarely fumbled and deep down he wanted it more. If more players had his heart and determination they'd be all-americans and no. 1 draft choices.

We need physical talent AND good coaching & development AND hope that the kid has character and heart to appreciate that he can get better and reach his full potential here.

The annual pre-football season Wolverine magazine came out and if you read the review of the 2006 class you'll see a lot of highly touted players who didn't make it here (and not due to injuries) and if they transfered, many didn't even stay in football.

Interesting post.

Football in many ways doesn't really use the full statistical power available despite having a lot of data. We still use a lot of basic descriptive statistics and even then don't put in important parameters. We note the average yards gain rushing but not the standard deviation which might be more helpful about a runner. A RB with a high average but a distribution which is skewed heavily to the positive side implies: dependably gains yards, rarely gets caught for a loss and if he has long positive skew the ability to break away.

Two observations:

1. Any attempt to find a single statistic to predict victory or defeat is unlikely to ever succeed. Games are won or lost for more than one reason. Sometimes it is due to a single turnover or a single error on a crucial 3rd down play. An otherwise well played and well coached game can come down to one missed field goal or one mistake.

2. Any statistic when used must be discussed with respect to what are the norms in the conference or country. The Red Zone scoring percentage mentioned is a good one. A scoring percentage of 79% sounds good until you learn that the WORST of the D1 teams last year was around 66% (go the official  NCAA stats, http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2010&rpt=IA_teamredzone&site=...) The 104th ranked red zone offense in 2010 (six way tie with Miami of Ohio, West Virginia, Miami of FL, Tennessee, Rutgers and UCLA) was 75%. The UM was in a seven way tie for 82nd with 79%.

Were your statistics about the UM being 109th based on several years data?

Agree with your hestiation to completely jump on this bandwagon. Passing is very important and stopping the pass is as you note maybe even MORE important. In large part this is due to (1) relative ease most teams have a stopping the run (2) team consistency from year to year and (3) huge pool of data against relatively closely matched teams. The last point can't be underestimated. It is hard to judge the value of strategies or plans if one side is overwhelmingly superior in sheer size, strength and speed. Mismatches are far more common in college ball.

It is a common misunderstanding. The University of Michigan is a public school in that it has some degree of public support (i.e. money from the State of Michigan) and its governance is public. The regents are elected. In contrast a private school like say, one of the Ivy League schools don't receive dollars to run the place and their governing board (call it what you will, board of regents, governors, visitors or whatever archaic term is used) are not necessarily voted in as much as appointed.

The employees of the school including the athletic department are NOT state employees. They don't receive a "state" check and don't have to follow the same civil service guidelines.

But I have to agree that if a person is in the position of having to check up and vet the players for possible compliance issues - they should NEVER put themselves in positions where their judgement can ever be called into question - simple common sense.

The scenarios are presented in a way which makes each opportunity seem quite innocent and above board - but because we are now a nation of rules lawyers, every act can be seen to be a precedent setting decision.

Both Tom Clements and Warren Moon had pretty good runs up north. The huge field, only 3 downs and mandatory 1 yard neutral zone helps legitimate dual threat QBs. TP might not actually throw well enough. The wide field and 12th player makes having a quick release with some zip on it a plus.

These points of data are helpful. It shows how incredibly unlikely it is for the millions of high school ball players to ever suit up for a major pro team. As you note it shows also how valuable having a college athletic scholarship actually is. It is sort of having a safety net. The realistic smart kids know this - they come to Ann Arbor hoping and wishing that maybe fate and fortune will strike and they might blossom into a NFL or NBA caliber player - if not well, coming here to school is pretty nice.

But the problem is that many athletes don't think this way. This is the way a 50 year old thinks - someone with experience with life and its many disappointments. Until it is all over, most kids don't ever believe that they couldn't make it; especially if one was all-state or a top player in high school.

Agree with the notion that a lot of people in and out of the team can stomach a lot if they believe TP can win and win big for them.

Benefit:

1. Like him or hate him, TP can play at the B10 level.

2. He has experience and has come through for them in big games.

Risk:

1. If they play him, they risk keeping the magnifying glass on their program all year round.

2. They risk if anything else pops up forcing the NCAA to dig even deeper.

So much depends on what happens over the summer. Right now the OSU football ship is taking on water. In the past, they've stuffed the Maurice Clarett and Andy Geiger into the hole but this hole is huge - even Jim Tressl's professional corpse may not plug it. It migh consume Gene Smith and Gordon Gee.

Granted it isn't impossible, but 8 cars in the past 3 years? I believe this was with only two or three dealers, so somewhere he had to pop through a second or third time...clearly special treatment because he is a OSU football star.

Right now the Kubler Ross five stages of grief apply to fans of tOSU football

1. Denial - "nothing happened", "there is no to see here... move along"

2. Anger - "Why us?" "We didn't do nuthin" "Everybody else is doing the same thing"

3. Bargaining - "OK, we'll suspend the players 5 games and make Tressl give up some bucks." "OK, we'll suspend Tressl 5 games as well."

4. Depression - "Why now" "What now" "Youngstown, Maurice Clarett and now this"

5. Acceptance - "OK, we'll have to fix things and prevent things from getting this bad in the future"

These stages do not occur to all sufferers and do not always follow this sequence. Most experience at least two and typically oscillate between two, i.e. anger and denial.

I was undergrad and grad school here so in the early days got tickets through that source. Later got tickets through the alumni association for about 5 years before taking the plunge and joined the Victors for the minimal amount. Ended up with a pair in Section 42, (roughly 5 yard line, the first straight section before the curve) and about half way down. So great sightlines when the action is at this end, not so good at the other end. Now those seats are up in section 44 which took about a $250 bump to reach the next tier. Added a pair of chair backs when they became available because I'm just getting too creaky in the knees and hips. It was initially daunting when I looked into the point totals but there have been a lot of people who've been season ticket holders for decades.

Current priority point total is 500 which might be discouraging but that is from about 20 years worth of effort so I'm helped by a long "past athletic donations" and "university donation" tail. Keep at it and gradually you'll accumulate points. Remember donations to the University also count, although not at the same rate as athletic donations, so giving to LSA or Engineering isn't ignored. The points are roughly:

1 point for current athletic donation (per $100), 1 point historical athletic donation (per $100), 1 point historical university donation (per $1000), 1 point ticket loyalty (consecutive season ticket holder), 5 points (UM degree), 10 points (UM letterwinner), 1 point marching band donation (per $100). Minimum of $100 to keep Victors Club active. I think there are some details and limits - so I don't think having a BS, MA and PhD gets you 15 points. Go to the UM athletic web site for more details.

Clearly there are advanges and disadvantages. Cons: takes time and patience, Pros: makes you appreciate long term excellence and not freak out as much for a single bad season, although the past three were pretty tough. Also rewards steady giving over time and while you can plop down a big donation, smaller amounts over time actually help you and allow you more flexibility. That stretch from Carr - Mo - Last half of Bo was pretty sweet in retrospect.

Never was wait listed - from my limited experience, I think if you take the plunge you won't be wait listed long, your initial seats just might not be that good. It could be in the endzone or curve. The advice listed about the tiers seems accurate - once you achieve a certain tier, you might be able to advance up a bit here and there, but the real improvements come from bumping into the next tier.

Hope this helps.

Hi, interesting post.

1. Agree with the earliest commentator that you have obviously given this a lot of thought already but have to wonder if you might be having some reservations.

2. As a working clinician, I would respectively point out that from a practical standpoint the MD you are getting is as you noted just for the letters. Without a residency, there is little that you can do and frankly little that you actually know about the actual practice of medicine. By the time you are done with M4 year, you've seen some stuff and maybe helped take care of a bunch sick people, but really don't have a clue on how the diagnostic and treatment decisions were made and you never had the final responsibility of deciding a plan and making a decisive call on what to do and what to order. Don't take this too harshly, but your last post mentions money - so I'll call it - you want to be paid like a busy clinician but don't want to work like one.

The worst clinicians are those who are really lab experts and who because they are in a clinical department (e.g. internal medicine) and haven't been able to construct a career devoid of clinical care, end up doing a month or so of clinical duty each year. They don't like it and don't have their hearts in it. They make the minimal number of ward rounds and often don't see their patients for two or three days - they are totally dependent on having a good senior resident cover their interns. As a medical student, resident and now attending this is seen all of the time, and the care they render is spotty - sometimes the patient has a condition they are quite keen about it because it dovetails into their research and they get phenomenal care; othertimes, with the usual "routine" cancer, cirrhosis, pancreatitis, COPD, diabetes, HTN, cardiovascular disease, they let the interns and residents flail away.

3. In the lab, you have tremendous power and leeway in who to set up your research. You can fine tune your hypotheses and create a circumstance where there is only one or a few possible variables. In the real clinical human medical world, that is rarely possible. One of the frustrations basic scientists have when pressed into a "translational" world is that they don't realize how messy real medicine is - it is a patch work of evidence based methods and treatments (all p-values, ROC curves, randomized controlled double blind trials), empirical methods (legacy observations dating back literally hundreds of years), and guesswork (if it works, keep doing it).

4. If you always knew that you weren't going to be primarily or even secondarily a clinician, have to agree with the earlier post that perhaps a medical scientist training (MSTP) option might be better suited but at this point, since you are certain about a non-clinical future, there is little point of doing the three step USMLE process if you don't plan on practicing medicine. To do part III, you have to be in an internship year...USMLE 1 and 2 are of use mostly to get a license and to help you apply for residency.

Good luck but think over your options - going back to take the Boards AFTER many years out is harder than doing the GREs.

The drop under the million population mark is significant, but not that surprising. The sudden rise in population was spurred on by World War II and the post-war boom in the auto industry which lasted through the 1960's and probably peaked around 1973-1974 (time of the first oil crunch af the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the oil embargo by OPEC).  That was a long time ago.

Realistically it is unlikely that we'll see a return to that level of industrial activity in the Detroit area in the next 50 years. New techniques, new industries and new business models all make that unlikely. The vast majority of cars are now manufactureed outside of Michigan. Once people took a bus or train to Michigan and bought a new car there and drove home. Once raw iron ore and materials went into the River Rouge plant and complete cars came out the other end. We now have plants scattered throughout the country, outsourcing, just-in-time manufacturing and warehousing, and greater competition. Pittsburgh is probably a good example of a city which has moved on to its next chapter. Once dominated by steel, it has refashioned it self as a health, banking and commerce hub. Maybe the Aerotropolis idea may work. It would bring Detroit back to its original roots - that of a trading and custom post between Canada and the USA.

In the larger historical context, this decline isn't that different than what was seen around the world. Cities all have flourished at one or another when trade was active. The ones which have survived and endured have had more than one "thing" keeping it going.

Both Jalen Rose and Grant Hill played in the NBA for a long time. Their paths crossed and there maybe more to this whole thing than just what was said and felt years ago.

Jalen Rose was a producer on the film and the way it was edited, he got the final word. That yes, the Fab Fiver actually never won the National Championship and they had plenty of warts and reasons for people to criticize them, but they were also part of a unique moment in sports history where sports and popular culture blended together. His quip about no one remembering (except I suppose for die hard BBall junkies) who played on what championship team, but a lot of casual fans know who the Fab Fiver were, shows he knows that is the key point about the Fab Five.

Bobby Hurley and Christian Laettner when asked about the documentary didn't seem to take it as personally so perhaps there is more behind the scenes between Hill and Rose than is widely known.

Finally, the documentary is interesting it that it shows the glue that brought them together and sort held them initially was Juwann Howard and not Chris Webber or Rose. Sort of like the insight that among the 1960's Rat Pack, Sinatra admired Dean Martin - he wanted to hang out with Dino, and not the other way around unlike Joey Bishop, Peter Lawford and Sammy Davis Jr who definitely were there because of Frank.

I guess he'll be an example of someone who got a lifetime ban and the NFL really meant it.

First and only player who played predominantly a defensive role to win the Heisman trophy.

Crucial member of the team that won the MNC in the Rose Bowl, where he had a drive killing critical interception in the endzone.

Star defensive player in the Big Ten

Star defensive player in the NFL - won defensive player of the year.

Good Michigan man with solid big money donations to CS Mott Hospital.

Not a guy who has been caught in scandals and off field mischief.

Maybe there are other less heralded Michigan players who should be as well known and appreciated. But I hope when he is done playing that Charles Woodson would be an ambassador for UM football.

1. As of the start of the 2010 season about 25% of the suites were unsold. A lot of the usual corporate customers in Michigan really couldn't touch this sort of thing right now with the state of the economy.

2. There is a minimum committment, 3 to 7 years.

3. Each year there is stated that there could be an increase in the expected cost, from 1% to as high as 10%

4. NO outside food. As you can imagine the food there is nice but also suffer from the markup as all stadium food. But there are easier bathrooms to get to.

5. 16 seats max and 4 parking passes. Each suite has a LCD TV so you can also check out what else is going on.

6. At the original offering, one had to fork over a check for $10,000 non-refundable, and which was not necessarily applicable to the final deal.

7. Originally only "3 owners" but subsequently this has been liberalized to multiple owners but only 3 designated people can sign off on the food charges. Basically the stadium doesn't want to play referee, umpire and judge - your group set up your own organization, bylaws and deal with how you cut up the tickets.

8. All of the premium seating donations have a fraction which are listed as donations and are tax deductible and you do get an official letter for tax reporting purposes.

May have changed a bit after DB arrived as AD, but that was the general scheme. If you are interested, definitely give the AD a call or go to the facilities stadium web page and check out premium seating section.

Is it worth it? I don't have a suite but have one the newer real chair seat. As I get older, and more legs aren't what they were, being able to sit in a seat is nice. Actually prefer being outdoors - you hear the crowd better and it is simply more fun to be out in the air. Inside, you might was well be at home.

It is popular to rail against lawyers and "over regulation" as a modern ill (I'm not a lawyer) but just the brief run of replies shows what happens when we have people trying to game the rules rather than live up to the intent. This is where the NCAA really should be sticking their inquiring minds into. None of the rules were meant to allow kids to be brought in and later cut if they don't work out as players yet this is exactly what is happening.

I don't see any obvious answers to this, but just have to hope that better character will win out in the end; it is a sad commentary if what becomes acceptable as good compliance is all of the shenanigans which goes on and is tolerated in the SEC (and to be fair it occurs elsewhere, but most flagrantly in the SEC).

Without being a one note nag as I have suggested this before, if we are going to reassess players each year and decide if they can continue their "athletic studies" then make performance athletics a formal major and degree concentration. Not everyone can stick with the honors English program or the Electrical Engineering concentration. Not everyone makes the cut in orchestra or band. But they knew this going in and then it is all above board and open. It is bad enough to yank a kid's scholarship but to then bad mouth him in the press (as happened in LSU) is to just add further insult.

DB has a lot of reasons in stating things the way he did.

1. He doesn't want to label Brady Hoke as "second choice" just as one wouldn't want to label any important hire or relationship as a "second choice". Imagine how that would go over with the fans and just apply that to your own personal life: "Oh, honey, yes I'm very happy with you but if Ms. Victoria Secret had wanted me she was my first choice." Neither he nor any of the potential hires wanted to be embarassed.

2. Technically he is probably actually correct. In these types of jobs where the pay is in the high 6 and low 7 figures, what usually takes place is a set of meetings between representatives and/or the principals. Our side puts out feelers to the reps of Harbaugh and then reportedly Miles asking basically "hey, were the job at the UM (note subjunctive mood) to be offered, do you think he'll be interested." Then if we have a positive nibble "well, if the job were to be offered we'd certainly like to hear more like conditions x, y, and z." Then we dance back with "OK, sure we understand that you'll be interested in conditions x,y, and z and we can offer terms a, b, and c."

3. At this point after who knows how many iterations, if both sides are still doing this dance, one side or another, will bring up "well, it certainly sounds like we are on the same page, shall we make it a formal deal?". Then an "offer letter" is formally drafted up on official stationary, with all of these points x,y,z and terms a,b,c listed out, so that both sides can have their lawyers do one last vetting through.

So, yes, he is probably absolutely correct and can pass a lie detector test easily when he states only Brady Hoke got an offer, because probably he was the only one who got that far. We don't know how far the initial dance got with Jim Harbaugh or Les Miles. One factor to keep in mind is that we don't know how much either JH or LM wanted to come to Ann Arbor. Both have other negotiations to deal with, and so keeping alive the discussion about JH or LM possibly going to Ann Arbor may be useful to their reps when dealing with say the 49ers or LSU.

But no doubt he did "talk" with other people and their reps besides Brady Hoke.

One day, when Brandon writes his memoirs we might know his side in detail.

1. We have to wait and hear what happens with #16.

2. Then we have to see how many people on the team now will stick through Spring ball and Summer workouts and qualify for the fall.

3. We'll also have to see if any of the incoming freshmen who might enroll in the winter work out. I know this is doubtful, but it is a possibility.

4. We don't know how the "new" system will mesh with the "old" players.

So sure, maybe 7-8 wins are possible, but let's keep our powder dry and wait and see.
I do note that your chart suggests we could go 5-0 (again) and so we shouldn't be too excited if we are undefeated after September 2011. We've already been down that path twice.

Thanks for the post. Great insight!

1. Football coaching is an evolving field. Can't become stagnant. Regularly infusing new people, new ideas and new concepts should be part of every program. Always doing things "our way because that is the way we do things here" is the recipe for long term failure.

2. A great excuse for spending time on this site - justified because of this insight - applicable to business and other professions!

So called big name coaches are unlikely to come here because:

1. They already have their system in place - a system which is both on and off the field. On the field, they are winning (otherwise they would not be "big name"). Off the field they have a recruiting system which is funneling good players to them (again, otherwise they would not be winning for a long time), so why blow that up to come here unless they are really bugged about something.

2. They have little to prove or gain - we are not likely to offer these types of coaches more money or more leeway than they would where they are currently located. Consider if you work here as HC, your endorsement and side ventures are limited by the employment limits of the UM system - which is one of the reasons why you didn't see successful coaches here signing up to shill potato chips and car dealerships - things that can occur elsewhere especially down in the SEC - Bear Bryant's TV show was sponsored partially at one point by some local chip maker.

3. I realize that it is appealing to think of a guy who can come in make everything good (why don't the Tigers trade for Derek Jeter, Why didn't the Pistons get Michael Jordan, Why didn't the Red Wings get Gretsky....) but a more likely occurence is to find someone who is ambitious and talented - like Bo was back in his Miami (OH) days. I'd like to hear about some top DC from the schools in the top ten in scoring and rushing defense (by the NCAA totals) like who is Saban's DC or who is TCU's DC or even OSU's DC. These are the type of guys who (a) want to move up and will be super serious, (b) bring current knowledge to the table - they know the college game and all of the off field stuff that needs to be nailed down.

The Fellowship of Bo Coaching Line was indeed broken. Turmoil surges and confusion and terror besieges the great stadium stronghold of the Wolverines and the evil minions of the Vested Dark Lord pour forth. Ruin and desolation foul the land.

But soon the Riders of Rohan will crest upon the ridge and surge down, and all of the repentant oath-breakers (Michigan men and women who forsook their UM heritage) will arrive borne on the dark sailed ships and we'll sweep the Pelennor Fields of the Big House.

Then will be the time of the Return of the Coach and he'll lead the team to the very gates of Mordor (just outside of Columbus in the great blighted horseshoe stadium) and destroy the Vested Dark Lord and his tainted tattooed wraiths who long ago were men but who sold their football souls for tattoos, free cars and bling.

All will then be well back in the Shire of MgoBlog. We'll rejoice with butterbeers, first and second lunch and breakfast. But every now and then in all the decades to come we'll feel the scar of this moment, like the scar of the Horror until in the end those few lucky enough will be carried off beyond the Western seas to join the Wolverine Immortals like Yost, Crisler and Bo and dwell in maize and blue forever.

Right now much of the talk when it comes to CC revolves around the notion that there will be a CC and then devolves into a discussion about whether it is this guy or that guy and the pros and cons. If DB can't get the specific person he wants then he might just say "I've thoroughly reviewed the FB program and right now RR is our coach and is under contract for the next 2 years"...and then introduce RR to discuss changes in the staff starting with a new DC.  I don't see DB letting RR go without the specific person he wants already sewn up. That there is still a lot of talk floating around JH makes it far from a done deal - OR - he has the best security so far on information. Part of me perversely wouldn't mind seeing RR come back and having a junior Denard Robinson and a veteran offensive line - should be something to see.

One last aside: in the summer, if there are defensive transfer from junior colleges (I know that is a long shot historically at the UM) then DB is really trying whomever is the HC at that point get better real fast.

All this talk about stock markets and investments are off target - how many people really know what to buy and when? Could you even get a shot at the Google IPO?

Better to have gone way back to 1969 and get yourself a beer distributorship and a Domino pizza franchise in Ann Arbor, Columbus, Champaign, Madison, all of the Big Ten schools, etc.

Of course you are right that a few examples of non-AQ teams winning (and winning in exciting fashion) does not necessarily prove the idea that these conferences should be part of the BCS process.

But there have been enough recent examples that the old general belief that these schools could not be competitive week to week may be slowly dying. Once upon a time, any school which wasn't in one of the BCS conference (with the notable historical exception of the military academies and ND, principally from 1940-1970, with spots thereafter) meant that any game with a "big time" school would literally have been a game against (to paraphrase Gordon Gee) "the little sisters of the poor." They would be thoroughly thrashed. Check out the historical records of the Yost era when solid big time opponents were few. Some of the games were hopeless beatdowns with 60+ to zero. The annual ritual of having little fish come into the big stadiums for a big paycheck to act as warm up acts for the conference schedule has fooled many into thinking that this sort of situation still exists. Our own experience with the Horror and Toledo should make all UM fans realize that yes, these other conferences may not be great but the era when these non-AQ schools could be automatically dismissed is long over. It isn't just there are good non-AQ teams but the AQ teams are NOT as powerful as they once were back in the 1950-1980s.

There are millions more kids playing high school ball than in the past. There are more schools intent on buidling powerful FB programs. Most of all there are scholarship limits. How many kids do you think the old powers back in the 1960-70's would dress on game day? Some teams dressed over 100 kids. Not only were their starters great, but their second and sometimes their third tier players were really good, especially at positions like RB. Twenty four hour sports media and the internet further contribute by allowing kids to be followed by their families despite going far away - now it is commonplace for FL, TX, and CA kids to be recruited by schools in Idaho, Washington, Michigan, New Jersey, etc.

So, yes, one or two games don't prove the non-AQ conferences are equal to the AQ conferences, but good teams are good teams - of course, we'll never know until we have a true playoff. Tangentially, in basketball nearly every year we have a suprise in the Final Four. How often have the top 2 teams in March Madness actually make the final? Isn't it pretty rare that the FInal Four have all four top seeds? So there is little credibility that the final two in the BCS are really the "best". Look how infrequently the top two ranked teams meet in the Div 1aa, 2, and 3 tourneys and the whole notion that a ranking system produces the two best teams will be dispelled.

In general, isn't ignorance of the law never a valid defense? It is a mitigating circumstance in some cases, but I don't think it has ever been successfully used as a standard defense. I'm not a lawyer but perhaps another MGoBlog member is and can confirm this.

"I didn't know using privilege information to trade stocks was illegal."

"I didn't know selling company/government secrets was wrong."

"I didn't know shouting fire as a prank in a crowded theater is against the law."

The whole NCAA shamateurism is shameful, but at least the NCAA should try to be consistent. Amazingly at the end of the year, the NCAA has managed to be doubly bad. First it has the same old shamateur hypocrisy of some dreamy world of college sports which never ever existed except in movies from the 1950's. They compound this with the mishandling of the Cam Newton pay-my-folks-as-a-shill-for-me situation and then this tattoosu mess. Any other body would have said that the rules are not great but here they are and suspended all of the players for the bowl game and next year. Way to go NCAA; hard to believe but the powers there actually manage to make themselves even LESS respected than before.

Agree with your assessment - size looks good, but more teams are realizing that like baseball and "Moneyball" how a player looks is only part of the issue. Too many QBs look great with tape measure (JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Alkali Smith, Alex Smith, etc.) but just can't play. Other guys look like they should be selling shirts at the MDen (Danny Woodhead, Wes Welker, Doug Flutie) but are actual NFL pros. Flutie is an example of guy who didn't get a good shot until late in his career. When he was with Buffalo, they were within one fluke play (Music City Miracle - which was totally a forward lateral by the way :)) from another Super Bowl appearance. He won games with his arm, feet and head. But somehow the powers that be thought the other guy (who looked the part, Rob Johnson, USC, 6-4, etc.) was the guy.

Small QBs from lesser programs don't get many looks, but if you played on a strong program you'll get teams willing to give you a look and a chance.

Agree with your basic notion that there is some form of reciprocal exchange here but respectfully feel that much more can be done.

No except the most delusional believe any top athlete being recruited to play for a D1 school does not have serious thoughts about a possible pro career. The current rules are suppose to prevent a mercenary class of "student" players who would jump from school to school looking for a bigger paycheck. IIRC these sort of rules date back to the 1920's when college football first became big. (Hard to believe but once 80,000 turned out to watch Red Grange play and the game sometimes was only 6-0). Right now the college leagues in football, basketball and to much lesser degree baseball act as minor league system for the pro league. We have the ills and not of the benefits of an academic environment. So what can be done?

1. Acknowledge that the top recruits want to see if they can go pro.

2. Give those athletes a true athletic scholarship, like a dramatic arts, fine arts, or performance music scholarship.

3. Create a true program of study for "performance athletics" - with year round physical training in general, sport specific training, a thorough set of real classes about the nature of sport in the USA. Make it a point to develop the athletic potential of these kids.

4. A curriculum based about the nature of sport sounds hokey but consider that spectator sports (and not participatory sport) has become a major social, cultural and economic factor in American civilization. We speak of a "level playing field", "three strikes you're out laws", "judiciary acting as an umpire and not as a player", "free agent", a political "ground game", etc. The graduates would be expected to know about their specific sport in depth, sport in general and know also aspects of nutrition, basic physiology, and most of all the economics and politics of sport. Sounds hard to believe to some, but go look at the course catalog of any school offering a BA in Fine Arts, or Dramatic Arts, Dance or Music and there are plenty of theory and practice classes. Musicians, actors and artists have lives as difficult as any athlete and their careers are often just as short and uneven.

5. All candidates have to audition and are subject to review each year. Those who can't progress or can't continue are advised to look at another concentration. Not everyone admitted to the Music school hacks it as a performer - some transition over to teaching and other aspects of music. The rate of progress and success of a program would be easier to mention and indisputable - just look at the rosters of the pro leagues. Where do the players come from would make that quite clear.

6. The coaching staff can bring in top professionals all year round to evaluate and give counsel. There is no restriction on access. We won't see the odd situation of a 3 or 4 year starter in college not being able to read a defense, or have strange mechanics. Good training will attract the players with the best potential. The top companies come on campuse to recruit and most schools bend over backwards to have them visit their classes and talk with their students. Would any computer science/computer engineering school prevent recruiters from Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Siemens, etc. from hanging around?

7. Any one can try out for the team - in fact like the orchestras and bands, most of the team will be non-performance athletics students, but the real stars of the teams will probably be these performance athletics kids.

8. Kids are free to turn pro any time, but once they take pro money their eligibility to play in the college leagues is over and done.

9. Admittedly such a system will probably lead to the demise of most dynasties - the top players may only stay on for 2-3 years, a few for the full 4 years but it would stop the whole shamateurism hypocrisy. An open policy will drive the shady boosters, "friends" and other hangers-on into the light and a lot of their crap will be exstinguished. We won't see scores of kids being strung along with pipe dreams of turning pro when they are just roster fodder.

10. I know this is a tough sell for those who still hold physical activities as being something which is not academic or scholarly. But if the university consortiums can certify degrees in music, dance, and art, why not performance athletics?

4 thoughts popped into mind after watching that video - great selection.

1. The whole Les Miles and Randy Shannon episode just shows again the whole hypocrisy of big time college football. The top kids go to the big programs because they want to turn pro. The coaches at the top programs pretty much know that they have to win and win now to keep their jobs and there is little incentive outside of pretty broad rules about getting kids to go to class and actually learn anything. Making the rules tougher - that is limiting to the actual number of scholarships available + 1, for example might seem an answer but after what has been revealed, I'm afraid there will be wholesale "running" of kids off of campus to get their scholarships. In contrast Saban's over use of medical "retirement" seems downright paternal - at least trying to let the kid go to school. Bo and Woody were tough and so were Moeller and Carr. I think of guys like Antonio Bass. If he were down at LSU or Miami instead of here with a standup guy like Lloyd Carr, he would have been bounced out once the coaching staff learned he'll be lucky to walk normally and play pickup basket ball. These guys are just cold-blooded.

2. What is also amazing is that the Miami example was with a kid who was on the field and contributing. With that type of ruthlessness, they were still a bad team!

3. Each year at senior day, we see the players who are about to play their last Michigan game get introduced. Some are famous and have starred for years. Others are minor contributors who get a nod of recognition from their work on special teams. Others still get only a "whose that" response and most people in the audience don't have a clue who this kid was and what position he played. But they stuck it out and now they are walking with their family and friends and get a last final round of applause. I'm glad Michigan each year has a number of such players - players who were probably high school stars but for whatever reason didn't work out and didn't end up being a college star. I'm glad we are not a place who runs those kids out of Ann Arbor. Who knows, one of them might end up being a successful CEO and future AD.

4. If this is what it takes to produce a MNC, I'm much happier just winning the Big Ten every now and then. Camgate and this stuff prove, yes, there is a difference between the Big Ten and the SEC - and it isn't on the field. It is about basic decency and compassion. It may be down south, but the SEC looks like a pretty cold hearted place.