- Member for
- 3 years 33 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- top 50: 0-4
- 51-100: 4-1
- 101-200: 4-1
- 201-500: 2-1
- 501+: 2-0
|3 days 13 hours ago||Let's not kid ourselves...||
...there's a lot of work to be done.
Michigan's record against (using Massey):
The last time Michigan played a top-50 team and didn't lose by double digits was last November.
The best road win is @ #110 Penn State.
They're #95 at KenPom, looking up at such luminaries as N.C. Central, Eastern Ky and Toledo.
That's not a good resume.
|3 days 14 hours ago||MSU...||
...is #33 at Massey, #23 at KenPom.
That's an 8-seed at worst, for the moment, unless you think their computers have also been programmed with some sort of irrational pro-Sparty bias.
Michigan is #71 at Massey, #95 at KenPom.
|3 days 14 hours ago||Read the blockquote again.||
He didn't say anything at all about waiting until the facts are in. He's saying, quite clearly, that cheating is part of sport as long as it doesn't involve something undetectable by the opposition.
|3 days 14 hours ago||No.||
They only check the balls if one of the teams requests it, and as far as we know only the Colts made such a request. (What it has to do with Rosenberg, I have no idea.)
It's a bit like checking the curvature of a hockey stick. Well, except that there's no penalty in this case.
|3 days 15 hours ago||It's the score differential that's irrelevant.||
"I didn't need to plagiarize anything--it would have been a perfectly good paper without those eleven paragraphs I cribbed" is not a defense.
|3 days 15 hours ago||Quick back-of-the-envelope calculation.||
Pressure's proportional to temperature for an ideal gas (a good-enough approximation for our purposes). A drop from 12.5 to 10.5 psi is a 16% drop; we'd need a 16% drop in temperature to explain it. 40 degrees Fahrenheit is 278K, which would be a 16% drop if the temperature of the gas when the pressure was measured was 331K, or 136 degrees Fahrenheit.
Edit: Never mind--like countless before me (I should have read the thread, or just known, that I wouldn't be the first to do the calculation) I forgot about the difference between air pressure and gauge pressure.
|3 days 15 hours ago||It seems to me...||
...that the issue here isn't the pressure of the balls New England used but the difference in pressure, if any, between the balls used when the Patriots were on offense and the balls used when the Colts were on offense.
If that wasn't checked, WTF was the league doing when it "investigated" this? If it was, why aren't we hearing the results?
|3 days 15 hours ago||I don't mean to call anyone out...||
...it's a random selection from a lot of similar posts. But I'd have to call this a defense of cheating...
|4 days 15 hours ago||Corollary.||
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Spartan Bob's shenanigans. After all, we could see that the clock wasn't moving. It wasn't anything the opponent couldn't detect.
|4 days 15 hours ago||Yes, that's correct. But||
Yes, that's correct.
But those balls go into a single pool, used by both teams. The only way the two teams would be using different balls would be if the ball attendants were feeding particular balls into play depending on which team was on offense.
That would be possible, and it's the crux of the issue here.
|4 days 16 hours ago||Pre-game, yes, but...||
Just before kickoff, all the balls are delivered to the ball attendants. They could just as easily manipulate the kicking balls as the scrimmage balls (not that there's been any serious suggestion that it happened in this case).
The bottom line is that all the balls are in the possession of employees of the home team throughout the game. They control the balls on the sideline; they're the ones that send the balls onto the field. If the league really wants to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen they either need to supply neutral ball attendants, or make the penalty for manipulation so great that no one would ever risk it.
|4 days 16 hours ago||Per NFL rules...||
“It is the responsibility of the home team to furnish playable balls at all times by attendants from either side of the playing field.”
Once checked by the officials, the balls are in the custody of ball attendants, who are in the employ of the home team. It wouldn't be that hard to deflate a few balls and make sure those are the balls on the field while the home team is on offense. Except in the event of a turnover, there's always a kicking play between possessions, which means a change of ball. And on a wet day like this the ball's being swapped out all the time.
What the Colts and/or the officials should have done--and I'm not sure whether they did or not--is also check some balls in use while the Colts were on offense. If all the balls were similarly deflated there'd be no competitive advantage and there'd be no issue. If there was a systematic difference in pressure depending on which team had the ball, we could be pretty sure the ball boys were up to something.
|1 week 8 hours ago||I had exactly the opposite reaction to that last stat.||
I agree with the people that say they should have called off the trap, but six fouls in a half isn't a lot.
But no fouls in a half? That goes way beyond physical mismatch--that's a group that's not even trying.
I was on the wrong end of a few of these in IMs. In January there was only one league and my collection of motley misfits had to play a team that had just beaten the varsity, badly, in a scrimmage (that can happen at a D3 school--a few of them had played varsity as freshmen and sophomores but decided basketball was taking too much time from their class work). They whooped us by 80 in a shortened game...but we were still trying to get in their way, trying to box out, and we picked up a few fouls along the way.
|1 week 8 hours ago||My father went through a season like this.||
He was coaching eighth-grade boys one year and had a really, really good team, and spent the season trying to come up with ways to keep the score down. He'd do things like take away the dribble--nobody's allowed to dribble, at all, unless you need one dribble to get to the basket for an open layup.
Sometimes that didn't even work.
And sometimes the ideas backfired. Once they were up 26-7 at the half. That wasn't quite as bad as some of the games had been, and at some point you have to let your starters get some game experience, right? At that point they'd only had one competitive game all year.
So he split the team into two groups of six, with the best players split between the groups. He took away the dribble, again, and he told the two groups that whichever one gave up more points in their quarter would have to run gassers the next day in practice. (My memory is that he also said whichever group scored fewer would run, too, but it's probably wrong because nobody else remembers it.)
You've probably already figured out the strategy for the third-quarter group--they went out and used up all the fouls, made sure the other team was in the bonus when the 4th quarter started. They won their quarter 16-0 and were pretty pleased with themselves.
The second group went out in a bad mood. No dribble was bad enough, and now a single foul would mean they had to run.
They won their quarter 17-0.
And the other coach was mad. Hell, their scorekeeper was mad, which I remember well because I was keeping our book and got an earful.
What I thought, sitting there at the table watching it all and listening to all the bitching, I couldn't very well say, which was that damn it there's no excuse for being that bad. Their school was twice the size of ours, and they couldn't even put five guys out there that could defend a team that wasn't allowed to dribble??? That wasn't lack of physical talent, that was years of incompetent coaching.
|1 week 2 days ago||I'm thinking early to mid '80s for the first usage.||
Jackson didn't get to do many games at Michigan in the '70s--remember, each team was only allowed be on TV once per season then, which basically meant that the only network games from Michigan were the odd-numbered years against OSU. WolverineHistorian would know better, but I think the first game Jackson ever did there was '77 Ohio.
|1 week 5 days ago||Going to be a long week here in Ohio.||
So I think tomorrow I'm going to go out, shake the hand of every OSU fan I can find, look them square in the eye and, without a trace of irony in my voice, offer my heartfelt congratulations.
I have the flu.
|1 week 5 days ago||It's January 1, 1969.||
Embrace the suck.
|1 week 5 days ago||I loved it.||
Too many football fans around the country don't care about Ohio State. Bring back the hate.
And if this really is 1968 all over again, I can deal with that too. That next decade was glorious, if exquisitely painful at times.
|1 week 5 days ago||Fremeau's DYAR is||
Fremeau's DYAR is schedule-adjusted yards-above-replacement, so it gives us a chance to see how much of a difference this actually makes.
On the left is Manning's rank in DYAR for each season, on the right is his rank in the equivalent, non-schedule-adjusted YAR:
That's a hell of a career no matter which column you look at.
And unlike college, SOS is apparently a pretty marginal effect in the NFL. In 12 of his 16 seasons his ranking was the same whether you adjust or not. Twice he was bumped up by a weaker schedule, twice he was bumped down by a stronger schedule, and the movement was never more than two slots.
|1 week 5 days ago||Comments like this...||
...always seem to come from fans of teams that very seldom even make the playoffs.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||So, in this case, he should||
So, in this case, he should have punched himself in the mouth?
I guess that could explain the picture....
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Bowl losses?||
I, for one, would much rather lose a bowl game than not be invited to one.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||It didn't start with Faust's hiring at ND.||
There were already a ton of ND fans here in the '60s and '70s (and probably before but I'm not that old).
I think it's the natural result of the dominance of the four Catholic high schools in football. There are about 30 D1 and D2 high schools in the area and as mentioned above, 19 of the 22 Cincinnati players now in the NFL went to one of those four schools, only 3 came from one of the 27 (I think that's the number) big publics.
There's also, probably for the same reason, a lot of ND resentment here too. I've never met so many people whose favorite team--not even second favorite--is whoever's playing Notre Dame.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||That's not how I remember it.||
Do you honestly think the program was clean under Frieder and the problems suddenly appeared when Fisher took over as HC? We may just have a different definition of "clean".
There was a lot of foul-smelling smoke around the program in the 80s--it's a big reason Bo "didn't fully support basketball", in Frieder's words. I think it's very likely Bo would have cleaned house if the surprise NC hadn't forced his hand.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I don't think it's a stretch...||
...to suggest that the attitudes of Beilein and Frieder and Fisher towards such matters are not quite the same. We know the program wasn't anywhere close to clean in the 80s and 90s, and as long as you're going back that far for your examples I'm pretty happy.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Maybe you don't recall it, but...||
And I'm not blaming Gardner either. Or Borges, or Threet, or Rodriguez. It's a natural cost of these repeated 180-degree switches in philosophy--you wind up rosters full of guys you probably wouldn't have recruited and who aren't ideal fits for what you know how to do.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||"What else could it be"||
is a lazy argument.
The natural next step is to isolate the variable you think is responsible and see if the correlation you expect is really there.
And, FWIW, the very fact you mention that "punting is getting better" is a sign that something else has happened over time besides changes in tactics. The punters themselves have changed with time. Average punts (gross, not net) are much longer now than they were 20 years ago. 43 yards/kick was enough to lead the NFL in the early 90s--we've seen several kickers top 50 in the last few years. The ten longest averages in NFL history all happened in the last eight years; 33 of the top 34 happened this century.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||An odd story.||
Was this supposed to have happened before or after Shafer was effectively deposed in the run-up to Purdue? It was already clear at that point that Shafer was done at Michigan, and nothing about the way it went down, then or at the end of the season, makes it seem like any sort of amicable separation.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||If anyone ever gets around to doing one...||
One of the things I'm really curious about is the impact of Aussie punters. If it turns out to be true that the shield-punt is superior, how important is it to have a guy that can kick accurately and on the move?
Maybe we could find a way to separate the "rugby kicks" from the straight shotgun punts. Or maybe the threat of it is important on its own (remember M sending two punt returners back to defend against it?).
Another thing that might be useful is to look at the spectrum of returns, and not just averages. SC's write-up suggests that shield punts might give up more long returns because there's a single wave of coverage. Is it true, in practice? It hasn't been my impression; some data would be nice.
For as much interest as there's been on the topic around here, it seems to me there's a lot we don't know.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||The rules are different.||
In the NFL only eligible receivers can release before the ball is kicked. A shield punt makes no sense if you can't send your linemen downfield.