When We Beat Alabama

When We Beat Alabama

Submitted by Swayze Howell Sheen on July 26th, 2012 at 11:09 PM

There has been a lot of talk about the Alabama game and a likely loss. Frankly, I am sick of it. 

So let's imagine the win instead. Suddenly, UM vaults to #1 in the country, and the path before the team becomes clear: win out (or even lose once) and play for the national championship.

Though it will undoubtedly be challenging, this team has a ton going for it:

  • Lots of coaches have their "best" year in their second year, winning a national championship
  • There are a ton of returning players, including amazing gamebreakers like Denard
  • The Big Ten is down this year (Wisconsin/MSU with a new QB, OSU adjusting to a new coaching regime, and Penn State ... er)

Discuss. Or rather, let it sink in: WE ARE GOING TO BE #1 BABY!


We're Number 6! [Fulmer Cup]

We're Number 6! [Fulmer Cup]

Submitted by phjhu89 on July 26th, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Last week's hijinks have moved M up from 19th to 6th in the Fulmer Cup rankings!  Although it would take a prodigious effort even to make it to #2, we are only one good felony charge away from sharing 3rd place.  

Anyone know if Michigan has ever been this high in the Fulmer Cup standings before?


EDIT: link to Fulmer Cup explanation: http://www.sportsargumentwiki.com/index.php?title=Fulmer_Cup

Fitz and Clark's names removed from lockers

Fitz and Clark's names removed from lockers

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on July 26th, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Just got back from my private Michigan Stadium tour as a birthday gift. I HIGHLY recommend it, Bill Austin, gives the tours and they're definitely worth the $100. Absolutely amazing. Got to go into the skyboxes, suites, lockeroom and onto the field. Even got to see the Little Brown Jug and Heisman from Desmond.

Something that really alarmed me was the locker of Fitz Toussaint. It read #28 and the nameplate that would say his name was replaced with the blank they use for lockers not in use. (Pictured)

Upon seeing this, I went over to where #57 should've been for Frank Clark. The only #57 there was for Elliott Mealer. There wasn't even an empty locker between him and #58 Chris Bryant.

Not sure what this means, neither did Bill. Maybe the players have to earn their names (or in Clark's case, his locker) back into the locker room. You decide...

Also on on a sidenote, Drake Johnson will wear #29 and Sione Houma will wear #39.

Also here is what the B1G logos look like on the field now that they're finished. The B is not Blue, it is actually transparent and is green turf colored.


How Big Is The Big Ten?

How Big Is The Big Ten?

Submitted by LSAClassOf2000 on July 26th, 2012 at 7:33 PM




Inspired somewhat by the thread listing the official sizes of our own roster, I decided to embark on a little research and download every Big Ten roster and get some statistics on the size of the average Big Ten player by team.

Hopefully, the board finds this information entertaining, if nothing else. The intent here was to provide a little insight into how each teams stacks up with regards to size, and it may even speak to the general parameters of the Big Ten player. As I put together position-specific analysis, that might be more apparent.




I went to each team site and copied the roster into Excel, keeping names, positions, height and weight for the analysis. This first delve into the subject will address only height and weight for the entire roster, but I actually will produce some additional entries which will address offense and defensive by position and / or position group.

One interesting sidebar to this was a small analysis that I conducted earlier this afternoon based on a post that I made in a thread. I took the average sizes of the incoming freshmen and compared it to the average size of everyone in the same position on the Michigan roster. Those results are in Table 1 below.


Table 1 - Michigan Freshmen vs. Michigan Roster By Position

WR (Freshmen) 75 201
WR (Team) 73 191
TE (Freshmen) 75 254
TE (Team) 77 245
RB (Freshmen) 70 187
RB (Team) 70 198
FB (Freshman) 72 221
FB (Team) 73 224
OL (Freshmen) 78 291
OL (Team) 77 300
LB (Freshmen) 73 221
LB (Team) 74 225
DT (Freshmen) 76 303
DT (Team) 76 288
DE (Freshmen) 75 247
DE (Team) 75 243
DB (Freshmen) 74 184
DB (Team) 70 171




One of the most interesting things for me to come out of this – because I never really had thought about it before – was the relative lack of variation across teams for both height and weight. For example, in the Legends Division, Iowa and Minnesota average 74.2 inches, and Nebraska is the shortest at 73.8 inches. For weight in the Legends Division, Michigan State is the heaviest team on average at 240.6 pounds, and Northwestern is the lightest at 223.1 pounds. In the Leaders Division, Wisconsin is the tallest team and Indiana is the shortest, and Penn State is the heaviest whereas Indiana is the lightest, but in both cases, not by huge margins. 

Now, within rosters, it's somewhat different - maximum and minimum heights are over 12 inches apart in most cases, and everywhere, weight within rosters varies dramatically, but this is typically because of what coaches want and where. When I do some position-specific stuff, I will see if I can dive into variation across teams at the same position to gain insight into what teams look for specifically.


Table 2 - Legends Division Height Summary Statistics

HEIGHT Iowa Michigan MSU Minnesota Nebraska Northwestern
AVERAGE 74.2 73.9 74.1 74.2 73.8 73.9
MEDIAN 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0
MODE 74.0 75.0 75.0 74.0 73.0 75.0
STANDARD DEV 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.6
VARIANCE 5.9 8.1 6.4 6.4 5.6 3.3
MAXIMUM 80.0 80.0 79.0 81.0 80.0 80.0
MINIMUM 68.0 66.0 68.0 68.0 67.0 68.0


Table 3 - Legends Division Weight Summary Statistics

WEIGHT Iowa Michigan MSU Minnesota Nebraska Northwestern
AVERAGE 229.8 227.8 240.6 232.7 231.6 223.1
MEDIAN 220.0 220.0 236.0 230.0 220.0 215.0
MODE 210.0 185.0 190.0 245.0 200.0 205.0
STANDARD DEV 38.0 44.0 44.4 39.3 42.7 42.4
VARIANCE 1446.3 1934.9 1973.6 1547.4 1819.9 1906.4
MAXIMUM 310.0 341.0 325.0 325.0 325.0 315.0
MINIMUM 160.0 164.0 170.0 165.0 155.0



Table 4 - Leaders Division Height Summary Statistics

HEIGHT Illinois Indiana Ohio Penn State Purdue Wisconsin
AVERAGE 74.2 73.6 74.1 73.8 74.2 74.3
MEDIAN 74.5 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0
MODE 75.0 74.0 75.0 75.0 76.0 75.0
STANDARD DEV 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.6
VARIANCE 6.4 5.4 5.3 6.8 7.2 6.8
MAXIMUM 82.0 78.0 80.0 79.0 79.0 81.0
MINIMUM 68.0 67.0 69.0 68.0 69.0



Table 5 - Leaders Division Weight Summary Statistics

WEIGHT Illinois Indiana Ohio Penn State Purdue Wisconsin
AVERAGE 229.6 228.5 234.9 236.5 229.1 234.7
MEDIAN 217.5 220.0 230.0 233.0 220.0 220.0
MODE 200.0 208.0 225.0 199.0 225.0 190.0
STANDARD DEV 41.9 40.7 41.0 41.2 41.9 46.2
VARIANCE 1752.7 1655.0 1679.2 1696.5 1754.8 2132.1
MAXIMUM 325.0 315.0 317.0 347.0 324.0 343.0
MINIMUM 170.0 155.0 173.0 155.0 175.0 160.0

I have all the data break things down by position, but I wanted to share this high-level overview of Big Ten "size" with the blog. 

Fitz "might" be available against Bama

Fitz "might" be available against Bama

Submitted by Phil Brickma on July 26th, 2012 at 4:49 PM

According to Joe Schad's Twitter feed.

@schadjoe RB Fitz Toussaint is not necessarily going to be suspended for all or some of Bama season-opener; going through discipline now


Personally, I don't know how I feel about this. Granted, I'd love for him to be available, but if he is prosecuted for a DUI, I feel he should miss adequate game time. We hold ourselves to higher standards than MSU and the Chris Rucker-gate or ND and the Michael Floyd situation.

Thoughts? Besides possible euphoria imagining Fitz ready to go against Bama?


Edit: My apologies to Mr. Rucker.

Big Ten Conference Schedule to Remain at 8 games

Big Ten Conference Schedule to Remain at 8 games

Submitted by oakapple on July 26th, 2012 at 4:20 PM

At today's Big Ten media day, Commissioner Jim Delany said that the conference agreed unanimously to keep playing an 8-game schedule. Previously, the conference had planned to expand to nine games, but that was not unanimous.

The now-canceled Pac-12 scheduling alliance was supposed to be in lieu of the ninth game, but Delany doesn't (yet) have another conference lined up. But he said that the schools now believe that better out-of-conference games would help improve the Big Ten's strength-of-schedule relative to other leagues.

I was never fond of playing a ninth conference game, because every year half the teams have the advantage of an extra home game. I would rather see a wider variety of opponents coming onto the schedule.

It would be interesting to know which A.D.'s changed their minds. I, for one, am pleased to have it stay at 8 games, but I know Brian is going to be unhappy.