- Member for
- 6 years 9 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|4 weeks 6 days ago||They're losing because they||
They're losing because they lack players at O-line, D-line, and safety
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Because the rule is against||
Because the rule is against "substitution with intent to deceive", not deception in general.
|51 weeks 5 days ago||So Ohio State but better? We||
So Ohio State but better? We didn't fare well against good defenses with elite athletes.
|1 year 6 days ago||whah||
|1 year 2 weeks ago||I'm not worried that Indiana||
I'm not worried that Indiana played us close. I'm worried that Ohio State can replicate Indiana's strategy with much better playmakers and a great running quarterback.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||They're up, Michigan is #1||
They're up, Michigan is #1
|1 year 7 weeks ago||27-6||
|1 year 29 weeks ago||actual answer||
As you approach the speed of light, addition of velocities isn't linear.
According to the top train, they are moving 100 MPH relative to the 2nd to top train. However, they see themselves moving less than c (speed of ligh) relative to the bottom train. This is true no matter how many trains are in the stack - and every train still sees itself moving 100 MPH faster than the train below, and 100 MPH slower than the train above. With enough trains, you'll get arbitrarily close to the speed of light, but not quite there.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||Ashley's had some last week.||
Ashley's had some last week. Great bar even if they don't have Hopslam.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||Quick physics calculation||
EDIT - first attempt was wrong, didn't account for gauge pressure vs actual pressure.
Actually, this is most likely what happened. Assume the balls measured 10.5 PSI at 45 F, they would measure 12.5 PSI at 85 F. The balls would be a little warm.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||Dammit. We beat the spread||
Dammit. We beat the spread though.
|2 years 6 weeks ago||Michigan has only been||
Michigan has only been double-digit dogs 9 times since 1990:
13 - OSU - 17 - L
12 - Bama - 13 - L
10 - OSU - 16.5 - L
09 - OSU - 10 - L
09 - Iowa - 9.5 - W
08 - OSU - 20.5 - L
08 - PSU - 24.5 - L
08 - Florida - 10 - W
96 - OSU - 17 - W
98 - OSU - 10 - L
96 - Colorado - 9 - W
I may have missed a few, here's the data:
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Yay.||
Now we get to start a back that managed 3.1 ypc against Rutgers.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Not a chance. Do you remember||
Not a chance. Do you remember how terrible those defenses were?
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Yay.||
|2 years 9 weeks ago||I think you're on to||
I think you're on to something. He has a much better track record than Hoke at underperforming based on available talent. Seriously, I don't think there's a better coach out there at bringing in top 5 recruiting classes, and then going 8-4. Maybe we could go after Kiffin too, he had some of the same success at USC.
|2 years 11 weeks ago||Fuck this shit||
Fage 4 life
|2 years 12 weeks ago||What you actually mean is||
What you actually mean is "lack of any plays that did anything." Which is true. Lack of "playcalling" is the laziest critisism you can come up with. We couldn't run the ball, Gardner got no pass protection, Gardner kept throwing picks. What exactly did you want?
|2 years 16 weeks ago||Are there any specific rules||
Are there any specific rules in the NCAA that stop, say, a linebacker from lowering a shoulder into a reciever before the ball is thrown?
|2 years 31 weeks ago||First of all, talk to the||
First of all, talk to the advising and admissions offices. They'll be very willing to answer any questions you may have.
Secondly, Calc III at Michigan is really shockingly difficult. I've seen many future engineers struggle with the material and the workload. Don't let that surprise you. Places like Washtenaw will be considerably easier. (In high school, I took Calc III at UM-Dearborn - it was a cakewalk compared to the Ann Arbor class).
Take a look at the exams for last semester's Calc II class to see the material you'll be expected to know. Much more difficult than the AP exam:
Everything you should know about transfer credit:
Read this page about the math different math sequences:
|2 years 42 weeks ago||Pretty charts are welcome,||
Pretty charts are welcome, but not the background images
|3 years 2 weeks ago||You're right and that's||
You're right and that's depressing.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||While I agree that running||
While I agree that running the ball on 4th and 2 might have been successfull less than 30% of the time, I believe there are less conservative playcalls that would have done better. Spreading the field and looking for a quick slant/hitch/out + have Devin scramble if nothing is open HAS to be at least 30% successful - I would suspect much more.
Love the going for it, hate the play.
|3 years 3 weeks ago||It's pretty telling that in||
It's pretty telling that in 2008, that tire-fire of an offense with zero credible passing threat, our running backs never performed this terribly. Against Utah - the worst rushing game of the year - our backs still got 2.4 ypc. I just can't believe that the offensive talent level on this team is worse than 2008.
|3 years 4 weeks ago||This play could so easily||
This play could so easily option off that slot LB. Have Funches run a slant or a hitch, give Gardner an actual read at the mesh point. If Gardner pulls on the second play, any throw to Funchess is at least 5 yards with a single safety to beat. There's got to be something in place to punish that blind aggression.
|3 years 6 weeks ago||Alright, I put way too much||
Alright, I put way too much effort into this, but it's an interesting question. Weighing all of those factors is difficult, so I looked at the results of previous years.
From 2005 to 2013, there have been 823 overtime drives. I looked at only the first drives of each overtime.
Scoring - 72%
TD - 44%
FG - 28%
Turnover - 14%
So Gibbons kick is 65% vs 72% playing normally. The chances are much closer than I thought they would be. Figure in that our offense was playing badly, Devin is turnover prone, and Gibbons is an above average kicker - the correct decision might have been the kick.
(A game ending pick 6 has only happened twice in the last 7 years - less than .5%. The games were Pitt vs Ohio 2005 and Vandy vs Tennessee 2011)
|3 years 6 weeks ago||For an average college||
For an average college kicker, missing the both the 4th quarter + 1st OT FG is ~18%. Seriously, even with all that happened in this game, I think we win it 9 times out of 10.
I won't extrapolate Gibbons stats because of low sample sizes, but he is 6/11 from 40+ over the last 2 years (4/9 before this game).
Predicted points from from an average kicker during this game was 14.25, and Gibbons scored 12. He definitely performed below average, but not by much.
|3 years 6 weeks ago||Risk can be quantified. "a FG||
Risk can be quantified. "a FG wins it" - College kickers can hit a 40 yarder ~65% of the time. Why throw the ball? Because we shouldn't be so afraid to throw the ball that we accept a 35% chance at 0 points.
Sure, Gardner is a turnover machine - 7% of his throws get picked off. So give him some easy reads, get away from a run game that hasn't worked all night (does the reason really matter?) and go for the win. Or at the very least give poor Gibbons a better at the kick.
|3 years 6 weeks ago||This is a great||
This is a great series.
Borges isn't an idiot. He's been doing this for a long time. There's a lot of nuances to his playcalling, the things he did made sense at the time, there's a lot of logic to his decisions. He has a complete lack of understanding of statistics, though.
Running into a stacked box where you have 6 blockers for 6 defenders can be successful. You can call it "putting the players in a position to be succesful" . But it doesn't work out that way.
It only takes one unblocked man to stop one of these running plays at the line. Say your OLine is making blocks 90% of the time - your plays are still only 50% effective. Look at Saturday's game, and it's obvious that our Oline was much worse than 90%. And what's the upside? Perfect blocking gets us 5 yards. Add in underclassmen tight ends that can't block anything + losing our best player, then you have what happened Saturday - perfect blocking happens hardly ever, most runs get stopped at the line. Borges is calling plays like he expects the offensive line to execute - all of Borges's calls make sense if the offensive line executes - and it's absurd to think that the offensive line will execute. That's how you get 1 ypc on playcalling that "makes sense".
So get rid of useless tight ends, spread the field so you have to execute fewer blocks to be successful. You can say that's not Borges's philosophy - well I hate Borges's philosophy. Our super-manball Carr days averaged 4.5 ypc at best - that's the ceiling here. There's no reason for a team as talented as Michigan to settle for that.
Now, onto the overtime playcalling. You can say Borges was being "conservative". He wasn't. He was afraid to take a risk. Your goal in that situation is to maximize your chance of winning. Running three straight plays into a stacked box and settling for a 40 yard field goal = 65% chance of winning* in OT1. Throw a fade to Funchess, run something to the edge, have Gardner run it - ANYTHING but settling for 0 yards gained. Sure, having Gardner pass has a 10% chance of being picked off, but you're ALREADY at a 35% chance of scoring 0 points if you decide to play "conservative".
*(everyone that says Gibbons should have made that kick is wrong. It doesn't matter how many he kicked in a row, he's still a college kicker. anything else is gambler's fallacy bullshit).
|4 years 5 weeks ago||34-14 Michigan 198 rushing||
198 rushing yards