RR-Injuries and Playing Time

RR-Injuries and Playing Time

Submitted by Ziff72 on November 19th, 2010 at 10:14 AM

Does anyone have any insight on  RR's rules regarding missing practice/injuries/playing time?  

It appears he has an old school mantra if you don't practice all week you can't play, based on some personnel decisions this year.  It seems that borderline guys never play.  I must say he has perplexed me all year with his "this guy might play or he should be good to go and then not play".   He seems right out of the B. Bellichick school of injury reporting.

The Mike Martin saga really perplexes me.  If there is one guy on the team that has earned the right to not practice and then try to gut it out in the games it is Martin.   If the reports of an ankle sprain are true you would think they would try to rest the ankle all week and then see if they could tape it and let him play.   Then we hear he practiced fully on Tuesday.  If he practiced fully on Tuesday I would think he is guaranteed to play, but I think we heard the same thing last week and he didn't play.  If his ankle is still in bad shape why is he practicing fully?

Shaw this year was another weird one.  If they are good enough to play a little than play them.   Shaw played sparingly early in the Illinois game then late in the game he played a bunch and looked great.   Not sure if that is a way to build toughness telling the kids if they want to play you better not wiggle your way out of practice, but I must say it is perplexing.

 

Michigan Daily on Troy Woolfolk (and T-Woolf)

Michigan Daily on Troy Woolfolk (and T-Woolf)

Submitted by Communist Football on November 19th, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Nicole Auerbach profiles Woolfolk's "lonely journey" back from injury:

http://michigandaily.com/content/following-troy-star-cornerback-troy-wo…

Woolfolk himself talks about his lupine ancestry:

http://michigandaily.com/content/troy-woolfolk-rise-and-fall-t-woolf?pa…

That night I stayed up for hours pondering what was going on and what happened to me. Then I finally realized — I, too, was blessed with the gene of my family’s ancient tribe. Due to the fact that football is a competitive sport, my body felt as if it was being threatened by the opponent, which triggered the wolf gene to come out.

Crowd Intesity

Crowd Intesity

Submitted by mxair23 on November 19th, 2010 at 9:38 AM

I have always admired the colleges around the country that have very supportive fan bases. Ours being my favorite of course. But how do we take it up a notch? How do we get the crowd at the Big House into the game screaming and yelling the whole afternoon? Camp Randal, Happy Valley and the Toilet Bowl (Shoe) all have hostile crowds when we go on the road to play them. We should return the favor!!

How do we get a majority of the crowd to lose their mind for the WHOLE game?!

We need a 12th man tomorrow!!!

Interesting article with regards to how Wiscy lost out on Bo and Knight

Interesting article with regards to how Wiscy lost out on Bo and Knight

Submitted by harmon98 on November 19th, 2010 at 9:18 AM

From today's "Bacon Blog" John U. Bacon takes a look at a pivotal 40 minute head coaching interview back in 1966 with Bo and Wisconsin.  Interesting stuff.

link here: http://bit.ly/8YXX6Q

“Michigan didn’t need some silly committee or student rep to check me out,” Bo told me, “and I didn’t need any dime-store tour of the campus to appreciate what Michigan had to offer.”  

Down with OPP: Bret Bielema (UW)

Down with OPP: Bret Bielema (UW)

Submitted by oriental andrew on November 19th, 2010 at 12:04 AM

What?  Is this "feature" still a thing?  Yeah, it's still a thing when I have time for it.  I admit, I had time last week, but Purdue frustratingly doesn't publish a transcript.  I really didn't feel like listening to the audio of the entire presser. Seriously, what's up with that?  The previous weeks I was just really busy and didn't get around to doing it.  I've got a little time now as I relax while watching Michigan handle Bowling Green (woo basketball empty Crisler Arena!!!). 

So this week, we have that big meat-head Bret Bielema and his meaty Badgers (did that just sound really wrong?  At least I didn't call them yummy).  Anyway, here's the link to the presser, for those who wanna read the thing over.  Surprisingly, Bielema is NOT monosyllabic.  Whodathunkit. 

http://www.uwbadgers.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/111510aaf.html

Holy crap, his intro was long.  Spent a lot of time talking about how they played so many guys (11 on DL alone!).  He mentions a few players specifically, like JJ Watt (who we know is very good), Aaron Henry (pick six), James White (Fr, RB), and David Gilreath.  Now to the substance...

On gameplanning against Michigan...

  • Michigan offensive philosophy very different than under Carr.  Now have "a little bit more multiple" (I think he's referring to offensive formations?), but really clicking right now.
  • Denard and Tate present different challenges (seems like they're preparing to see both).  Mentions that Denard is a special runner and has "a live arm," but also that "he's had some picks, some bad decisions."  Because of his running ability, gets secondary and linebackers in iso coverages.
  • Tate is "savvy" and "shifty."  Suggests that you know what you get with Denard, but Tate is more of an improviser, making "a lot of in-play game adjustments and decisions."
  • Comparing DR and TF, he says: "They’re not the same, but there are some different play calls, but they don’t get in different sets or different philosophy, and I think they expect them both to know the plan, move them forward." (Yeah, that's just a wonderfully ridiculous sentence.  Quick thinking, coach.)
  • Talks about Michigan having had 5 TO's Saturday and that their "guys are aware of it."  Stresses ball security on their side.  Sounds like he thinks there is some opportunity to force a few TO's, what with the TO and Denard "bad decisions" comments.
  • They'll use a combination of WR's and RB's on the scout team to play DR.  Similar to what they did when playing ohio state (pryor). 

On the game/rivalry...

  • First time back to Big House since 2008, when UW lost.  Have to learn from positives/negatives, but it's a different team with different leaders.
  • Mentions that the road loss against michigan state was big and that they took a lot from it, taking confidence from that into the game this Saturday.

On their own team, personnel, other random stuff...

  • Doesn't believe John Clay will be at full strength, but feels good about the rotation they have with Montee Ball and James White.   Get good rhythm with those two and bring in a 3rd when needed. 
  • On UW averaging almost 40ppg, really lauds OC Paul Chryst.    Says he and the other coaches have done a great job of ingraining the offense, particularly when you see the 3rd stringers coming in and having success against IU.
  • Talks about how momentum in road games is huge, particularly for the road team to withstand swings in momentum to the home team.  This will be a challenge against UM.
  • Someone actually asked him why he thought the computer polls didn't seem to like Wisco as much as the human voters (really?).  He basically said, "I dunno, but it'd be neat to find out."  Then speculates that maybe it's due to computers looking at W/L and maybe not scoring margin.  (So yeah, that's actually pretty close.  Except for Billingsley.  That guy's just an idiot.  I still have no idea how his "computer poll" is in the BCS formula). 

So what did we learn?  That the media asks a lot of stupid superficial questions.  GO BLUE!  Beat Bucky!

The Line - What the heck is that?

The Line - What the heck is that?

Submitted by Blazefire on November 18th, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Introduction: Why post this obviousness?

I noticed the other day a poster had mentioned that 'the line' for the Wisconsin at Michigan game was Wisconsin -4, and they were confused as to how Michigan could be favored by four. Several posters corrected him, informing him that the -4 line means that Wisconsin is favored by 4 for betting purposes. After thinking about this for a moment, it occured to me that while most of us know this, I'm not sure WHY most of us know this.

I have never in my life seen a "beginner's guide to sports betting". Of course, I don't bet on sports, so I'm sure they probably exist, but for the majority of us that do not bet on sports, it's not something we're likely to come across. As such, it is perfectly reasonable that somebody might not get the concepts behind "lines". I'm not so much talking about how they're set, which JamieMac of Just Cover has done a wonderful job of going over before, talking about the practices of vegas oddsmakers and so on. No, I mean what they, and other sports gambling terminology means. As such, I've created a little diary here I hope that anyone who never really thought about the concept of "the line" will take a moment to look over.


Okay, fine, so what is a line, and how does it work?

Well... do you play golf?

No. I'm just a temporary personification of your target audience. I don't even know what golf is unless you decide I'm supposed to.

Shut up. You now know what golf is.

I know kung-golf.

You're not Neo, though. Moving on, in golf, one often will play with a handicap. Different leagues may calculate handicap in different ways, but the basics are this: A golfer's handicap is the number of strokes over par he is expected to finish on a given 18 holes, divided by a certain number, which changes based on the courses you've been playing. The intention of a handicap is to provide a golfer of lower ability a chance to "beat" par on the golf course.

This isn't helping.

Just wait. This is going to be rough and dirty, because I don't want to include too much math. If one golfer in a twosome has a handicap of 16, and the other has a handicap of two, that would indicate that on a standard par 72 18 holes, the first golfer would be expected to finish with a score of approximately 88, and the other a score of 74.

Rough and dirty twosomes? Lines are awesome.

Quiet. Let me speak. When you subtract each golfer's handicap from their raw score, it produces their handicapped score, which is used to determine the winner. So, in those conditions, if golfer one shot an 87, while golfer two shot his expected 74, golfer one would actually win the round with a handicapped score of 71, one under par.

And this applies to football because?

Because the lines are a form of handicap! The lines are vegas oddsmakers saying that, if we gave team one an advantage of X number of points, then it puts the teams on equal footing.

I still don't get it.

Okay. Work with me here. Lets go back to the numbers for the Wisky @ Michigan game: Wisky -4; Michigan +4. This is not an expectation of the outcome. They are not predicting that either team will win or lose by that many points.

But I though-

No. They're not. What they are saying is, "If Wisconsin were put in a 4 point hole, or Michigan were spotted 4 points, then the teams should be approximatly "on par". The difference between this and golf is that the teams should be on par with each other, rather than on par with the golf course.

So the line not a prediction of who will win or really even by how much, but a prediction of how to make the teams even?

Sort of. The important thing to remember is, the oddsmakers aren't trying to predict the outcome of the game. They're trying to generate betting. So Essentially, they're saying, "We think that on this field, at this time, Wisconsin is a better team by 4 points than Michigan. Do you agree or disagree?"

So when you bet against the line, you're not... betting on the game?

Not really. YOu're actually betting on whether the oddsmakers are right or wrong about the teams. Someone betting on Wisconsin is actually saying, "Wisconsin just destroyed Indiana, a team Michigan barely beat. They're more than 4 points better than Michigan." Someone betting on Michigan is actually saying, "Michigan is way improved over earlier in the year. I don't think they're four points worse than Wisconsin."

But isn't the answer to the question decided in the game?

Yeah, it is, but you're still betting on who will win or lose with the handicap, so you're still betting against the oddsmakers. Not against one team or the other. And even more worrisome... the oddsmakers are liars.

*gasp*

Yes, shocking, I know. that line they set... that's not really what they think would be an accurate handicap for the teams. If I were going to set a true handicap for the teams, I'd probably give Michigan abou a 7 handicap versus Wisconsin. If you added a touchdown to Michigan's final score, I think they'd come out tied in an average game.

So then... the point of a line?

To get you to bet. To get you either nodding your head in agreement or shaking it in disagreement with the oddsmakers, and putting your money where your mouth is.

I don't have a mouth.

Uhh... shut it anyway? Lets sum up:

The line is not a means of picking a winner of a game, nor is it intended to do so.

The line is a form of handicap, suggesting that under given circumstances, adjusting the final score by X points (subtracting for the team expected to win or adding for the team expected to lose) would create a tie score. It is an attempt to put the teams "on par" with eachother.

The line is a betting tool, and is not intended to predict the score of the game.

Betting with or against the line is an agreement or disagreement with Vegas, not a belief or disbelief in one of the teams.

Got it?

Sorta... kinda...

Good. I'm going to bed. If you have more questions, talk to one of our resident sports gamblers. At least now you won't be confused when you see Minn +16 against an opponent and wonder how they could be favored.