Video Diary: UM Football Hype Video 2K11

Video Diary: UM Football Hype Video 2K11

Submitted by Hoke Saves Lives on July 21st, 2011 at 10:40 PM

While not technically a diary, in the sense most diaries on the site are anyway, I’m giving thought to starting a “video diary” of sorts, with fun mash-up projects and such, over the course of the season.  I’ll prepare the video and give explanations of what I was thinking when I put it together.  I’m not sure what I’m going to do or use, but I’m sure I’ll come up with something.  If you have any suggestions, or ideas, feel free to post them in the comments.  Now, without further ado … onto the entry:

After all the positive feedback from the “Ohio State Inception” Mashup, I felt that I needed to do something bigger for my next video.  This logically led to one conclusion – a hype video. 

Now, my opinion of what a hype video should be may differ slightly from others, particularly the “Better Son, Better Daughter” videos (which I LOVED, don’t get me wrong), but I think a hype video should be so incredibly grand and awe-inspiring that you have nothing but goosebumps at the end.  In that vein, I was watching a particularly grand and epic blockbuster the other day, and I heard a speech that has from the time I heard it, been a particular favorite of mine … and it all just clicked together. 

I won’t spoil it for you, and I’ll stop boring you with words and just say …

… here’s my submission for a Michigan Football Hype Video 2011.

 

 

For App Users:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzHGdhdKxVk

Initially, just FYI - I wouldn’t expect this kind of quick turn-around from me between videos in the future.  I’ve been home-sick with the flu all week, and this was an outlet for my boredom.  All in-all, this took about 20+ hours to put together, though at least 6-7 of that was downloading videos.

Also, as I’m all for giving credit where credit is due, many thanks to Brian, shortsgoblue, and all those who’ve contributed to the original hype videos that came before this one.  They certainly served as the genesis for my own contribution and mine certainly wouldn’t have come about without them.  Additionally, kudos to everyone on YouTube who has so meticulously catalogued Michigan football highlights, specifically WolverinesHistorian and parkinggod, as well as all of those people who put together hype videos of their own, as clips were borrowed from a great many sources.  The nature of such a project as this is collaborative by default, given the limited material we all have to work with, so I do appreciate the efforts of others on their own videos. 

The speech, if you didn't know, is from "Armageddon" by none-other-than Mr. Michael Bay. It's the speech the president gives before the astronauts blast off to go fight the asteroid.  The clip can be seen here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_sUlupV48I

Now, a word about the music, as this is always the key subject matter for discussion aside from the actual video itself.  As I said above, I wanted grandeur and spectacle for my hype video, hence the “over-the-top” anthem I chose from 30 Seconds to Mars.  I love the grandiose-nature of their music (having used it for my “Movies in Action 2011” Mashup I posted a month or so ago), and I felt that it fit very well with the video I was trying to make.  Also, if you’ll go and read the lyrics (http://www.lyricskid.com/lyrics/30-seconds-to-mars-lyrics/vox-populi-lyrics.html) I think you’ll find they fit this season better than you’d think. 

I tried to make a video equivalent to what I think this season represents – namely reclamation of things we’ve forgotten these past few years and an attempt to recapture an old identity.  This is why there are so many references to the past tied into the video itself.  I wasn’t a RichRod basher or anything like that, and I’m all for more creative offenses, but there’s something inexplicably comforting about a return to past glory and having someone in place who we all know respects that past as if it was his own blood.  That’s why this video had to be so epic, because I just can’t escape that feeling that something epic is just around the corner.

Until then … hopefully this video keeps a sense of “epic” alive over the summer months, a summer when recruiting has abnormally slowed to a crawl, and we’re all on the edge of our seats counting down the days until the season kicks off.  Hope everyone enjoyed the video.

Cheers.

EDIT:  Also, just FYI, a poster below made this point and I wanted to make sure I wasn't making myself "look to good" by taking credit for someone's work, but the "over laid" visual effects, like Denard's running highlights on a stadium wall, old fans in a new stadium, and the old players over the new block M, those were all from an ESPN special and an award winning student-produced film on Michigan football called "Michigan Stadium - A Timeless Tradition" respectively that were used in another 2011 hype video.  I didn't do those myself, unfortunately. 

Here's the link to the student short:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Yg0x3gwB0

 

Progress, Quantified

Progress, Quantified

Submitted by Swayze Howell Sheen on November 14th, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Introduction

Now that we're seriously into the season, I thought it might be time to see how we're doing as compared to last year. Some people around here like tables (called "charts"), but methinks charts are hard to read. In fact, that's why last year I started plotting the Hennegraphs and other related graphical views of data B. Cook has put together.

The Graph

And hence, a graph of some key offensive statistics across the first ten games of the year, for both 2009 and 2010:

Click here for the full-sized graph, which is much easier to read.

The graph plots a number of statistics across each game of the season. On the left are all the number for 2009, and on the right the numbers for 2010. The bottom-most graph shows points scored in each game; the next graph up shows point differential (how many points we scored minus how many points the opposition scored); a similar set of graphs for how many yards our offense accumulated and yard differential (yards gained minus yards given up) are shown above those.

I also took some liberty of moving the 2009 Delaware St. game to before the Big Ten Season so that the comparable games are in the same part of the season.

Analysis

These graphs I believe allow one to make a few observations about how much the team has progressed since last season. And so I do:

  • In 2009, we were outgained in yardage, often significantly, in virtually every game against serious competition (the Big Ten team and Notre Dame). I think it is reasonable to make the case, and the record indeed shows, that we were just a bad Big Ten team.
  • In 2010, there is only one game like this: the MSU game. We have thus made a jump, at least to the middle of the pack, and possible higher (which the next two weeks will play a significant role in determining).
  • In 2009, a number of Big Ten games were quite close despite the yardage differentials. Is this a testimony to the fact that the team is actually pretty tough mentally, never quitting in games even though they were getting pushed around? It is pretty amazing how close the team was to having a pretty good seasonin 2009.
  • In 2010, in many ways our record is worse than our yardage numbers. This has a lot to do with turnovers undoubtedly, and is a great sign for the 2011 season.
  • Your observations go here.

A lot of this is well known and obvious for those who follow the team (i.e. mgoblog fanatics like myself), but I thought the visualization was a nice way to see the differences between 2009 and 2010. Certainly, it can be shown to any idiot who claims we haven't made much progress. 

Enjoy! And please do suggest other items to include on said graphs; it is not hard to scrape the data from the espn box scores.

SIAP: Chait on importance of this week's game

SIAP: Chait on importance of this week's game

Submitted by PeterKlima on October 7th, 2010 at 1:43 PM

I didn't see this posted or in my search results.  It is John Chait's take today on the importance of this MSU game. 

 

http://www.michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1136157

 

Having lived outside Michigan and now being back in Michigan, I couldn't agree more.  Some of us in state Michigan fans have a skewed perspective.

 

A few highlights:

If you're a Michigan fan living in state, you probably think this is a must-win game. Having lost two straight year to the Spartans, a third loss would signal an irrevocable shift in momentum. MSU would take its place as the state's dominant program, recruiting will follow, and Michigan will be plunged into a Dark Age.

You'd be wrong.
 

On the story vs. fact ...

Dantonio has positioned his team as the embodiment of the old Michigan virtues that have supposedly fallen by the wayside under Rodriguez: toughness, discipline, Midwestern values. That in actual fact Rodriguez has run a tight ship, and Dantonio a halfway house disguised as a football program, has not blunted the force of this message. Stories are more powerful than facts.

 

Hope for Michigan's D in Sparty's recent D performance?

Hope for Michigan's D in Sparty's recent D performance?

Submitted by PeterKlima on October 5th, 2010 at 5:31 PM

As many of you know, MSU's defense is pretty ordinary.  I know someone here recently compared the UConn and ND defenses as pretty similar (once their numbers are adjusted for Michigan's top level O). 

 

Specifically, MSU has had a pretty bad pass D (sound familiar?).  I believe they were rated around the same place as UM's pass defense prior to last weekend's games.  Then, Michigan ran into an accurate 5th year QB who threw 64 times....and Sparty ran into an off-day by Tolzien on a run-frist team.

 

Otherwise, Sparty has a similarly bad pass D, but they look better on paper now because of mistakes by Tolzien and dropped passes.  And it wasn't MSU's strong rush either.  MSU did not put great pressure on the QB.  I think they had one sack and a couple of hurries (worse tham UM).

 

They basically looked like a Michigan D.  They allowed Tolzien to throw and let him try to be mistake-free and he wasn't.  We allowed Chappel to throw and he was accurate (and threw a lot more). 

 

Is it a low-risk or high-risk strategy?  I don't know.  But, it can work I guess....

 

 

Mich favored by 13.5 over IU in Bloomington

Mich favored by 13.5 over IU in Bloomington

Submitted by PeterKlima on September 26th, 2010 at 9:33 PM
I just notice we have moved up to 13.5 point favorites against Indiana this weekend in Bloomington.

http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/las-vegas/line-moveme…

I think we win, but that seems REALLY high considering IU's offensive power.

Let's hope the money is right.

UM Opponent Sagarin Rankings

UM Opponent Sagarin Rankings

Submitted by BlackEvanDown on September 15th, 2010 at 6:59 PM

So, I was digging around in the Sagarin rankings because I was impressed with the UMASS win over William & Mary two weeks ago. According to Sagarin, the UMASS (69) game will be more difficult than the following:

  • Bowling Green (108)
  • Indiana (91)
  • Purdue (89)
  • Connecticut (80)
  • and Minnesota (105) if they actually played

While I do think Michigan has a right to be confident in playing a FCS team, I do not think this team should be taken that lightly. The CAA tends to be successful against FBS teams, and I would be willing to put their teams up against MAC and Sun Belt teams any day of the week.

Sagarin Rankings

Turnover Analysis Part 3: What Is The Impact on Winning?

Turnover Analysis Part 3: What Is The Impact on Winning?

Submitted by Enjoy Life on September 6th, 2010 at 10:01 AM

In Part 3 of the continuing analysis of turnovers, I’ll look at the impact of turnover margin (TOM) on the win/loss margin (WLM).

Summary:Basis: Only the 66 teams that automatically qualify (AQ) for the BCS bowls are included for the last ten years – 2000 to 2009. (See discussion below for why this change to AQ instead of all FBS was made.)

TOM is a significant contributing factor in determining the WLM.

90% of teams with a positive TOM of 5.0 or greater had winning records
84% of teams with positive TOM had winning records
Only 41% of teams with negative TOM had winning records
Only 28% of teams with a negative TOM of -5 or worse had winning records

62% of teams with a positive TOM of 5.0 or greater had WLM of +4 or better (8-4 record or better)
38% of teams with a TOM of 0 to +4.0 had a WLM of 4 or better
Only 25% of teams with a TOM 0 to -4.0 had a WLM of +4 or better
Only 8% of teams with a negative TOM of -5 or worse had WLM of +4 or better

Note: In Part 1, a statistical analysis concluded: Luck is primarily responsible for TOM of approximately 80% of FBS football teams. For the other 20%, team performance (good or bad) is primarily responsible for TOM. Teams within +/- 4.0 TOM per year are primarily dealing with luck. For teams with more than +4.0 TOM per year, good performance is the primary factor for the TOM. For teams with more than -4.0 TOM per year, poor performance is the primary factor for the TOM.

Details Here:  http://mgoblog.com/diaries/turnover-analysis-part-2-do-turnovers-turnar…

In Part 2, a statistical analysis concluded: Phil Steele is wrong. Turnovers do NOT equal turnaround. The teams Steele isolates (those with double-digit turnovers) are the teams whose TOM is primarily due to performance and not luck. Therefore his basic premise is incorrect. In addition, the percentage of teams that “turnaround” the next season is approximately the same when TOM is completely ignored.

Details Here:   http://mgoblog.com/diaries/turnover-analysis-part-1-it-all-just-luck-1

The Switch To Automatic Qualifiers Only:It is obvious (to even the most casual observer) that teams in the AQ conferences are significantly better than the teams in non-AQ conferences. Over the past decade, 71% of AQ teams have winning records but only 30% of non-AQ teams have winning records. The reason for the low winning record of non-AQ teams is they are significantly overmatched in their OOC games against AQ teams.

TOM becomes less of a factor when the two teams playing have vastly different abilities. I looked at the same TOM data including all FBS teams and the correlation was not nearly as high. This is exactly as expected. Non-AQ teams often have +TOM in their OOC and still lose. Including non-AQ teams in this analysis would distort the results.

I did not attempt to eliminate the data for non-AQ games (i.e. subtract all the non-AQ data for TOM and WLM). The data for TOM and WLM includes ALL games but only the 66 AQ teams were included in the analysis.

The Gory Details:The first table provides yearly and total over the decade for: 1) the number of teams with the indicated TOM; 2) of those, the number of teams with a positive WLM; and 3) the percentage of teams with a positive WLM in that category.

 

+5TOM

+WLM

%

 

+TOM

+WLM

%

 

-TOM

+WLM

%

 

-5 TOM

+WLM

%

2009

18

17

94%

 

42

37

88%

 

24

7

29%

 

14

3

21%

2008

24

19

79%

 

37

28

76%

 

29

15

52%

 

18

7

39%

2007

20

19

95%

 

38

34

89%

 

28

11

39%

 

14

4

29%

2006

22

18

82%

 

36

31

86%

 

30

14

47%

 

16

5

31%

2005

23

21

91%

 

32

26

81%

 

34

13

38%

 

17

4

24%

2004

21

18

86%

 

38

30

79%

 

28

11

39%

 

16

6

38%

2003

19

17

89%

 

40

31

78%

 

26

11

42%

 

15

3

20%

2002

31

30

97%

 

42

39

93%

 

24

11

46%

 

18

5

28%

2001

19

18

95%

 

38

33

87%

 

27

11

41%

 

14

3

21%

2000

27

25

93%

 

40

34

85%

 

24

7

29%

 

15

4

27%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

224.0

202.0

90%

 

383.0

323.0

84%

 

274.0

111.0

41%

 

157.0

44.0

28%

The second table provides yearly and total over the decade for: 1) the number of teams with the indicated TOM; 2) of those, the number of teams with a positive WLM of 5.0 or greater; and 3) the percentage of teams with a positive WLM of 5.0 or greater in that category.

 

 

 

 

 

0 to +4

 

 

 

0 to -4

 

 

 

-5

 

 

 

+5TOM

+4WLM

%

 

TOM

+4WLM

%

 

TOM

+4WLM

%

 

TOM

+4WLM

%

2009

18

12

67%

 

24

7

29%

 

10

1

10%

 

14

2

14%

2008

24

13

54%

 

13

7

54%

 

11

4

36%

 

18

2

11%

2007

20

16

80%

 

18

8

44%

 

14

3

21%

 

14

1

7%

2006

22

13

59%

 

14

9

64%

 

14

4

29%

 

16

1

6%

2005

23

15

65%

 

9

1

11%

 

17

4

24%

 

17

3

18%

2004

21

12

57%

 

17

6

35%

 

12

3

25%

 

16

2

13%

2003

19

10

53%

 

21

9

43%

 

11

4

36%

 

15

0

0%

2002

31

22

71%

 

11

1

9%

 

6

2

33%

 

18

1

6%

2001

19

10

53%

 

19

7

37%

 

13

3

23%

 

14

0

0%

2000

27

16

59%

 

13

6

46%

 

9

1

11%

 

15

0

0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

224.0

139.0

62%

 

159.0

61.0

38%

 

117.0

29.0

25%

 

157.0

12.0

8%

One More Thing– The question of cause and effect is bound to come up because I have only shown a correlation. "Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for causation and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation).

One question to ask for causation, “Is the variable relevant?” The answer is obvious “TOM is relevant to the outcome of football games.” Some people have experienced a correlation between the clothes they wear and their team winning a football game. But, of course, there can be no cause and effect – the clothes a person wears is NOT relevant to the outcome of a football game (sorry to burst anyone’s bubble).

It is also obvious that there is no “direct cause’ and effect because teams win games with even large negative TOM (Michigan was -4 TOM versus Florida in the 2007 Citrus Bowl).

However, a cause may be classified as a "contributory cause," if the presumed cause precedes the effect, and altering the cause alters the effect. It does not require that all those subjects which possess the contributory cause experience the effect. It does not require that all those subjects which are free of the contributory cause be free of the effect. In other words, a contributory cause may be neither necessary nor sufficient but it must be contributory.

Thus, TOM meets the definition of a contributory cause.

How much has leadership/cohesion changed?

How much has leadership/cohesion changed?

Submitted by PeterKlima on August 23rd, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Almost every discussion of this year's team leaves out one important factor that may greatly change the fortunes of the team.  I am talking about the change in leadership and cohesion.  Comparing the 2009 OL to the 2010 OL or the 2009 DBs to the 2010 DBs is interesting and important, but it is  hardly a full analysis.

 

ASIDE from the change in the personnel in those units.... and ASIDE from the team understanding schemes/terminology better.... the difference in leadership should be mentioned in season previews.

 

I think Michigan had talent last year, but things fell apart after a couple tough losses.  There were some leaders on the team, but not enough to lead all the young guys and the train came off the tracks. 

 

We all know college football is an emotional game played by very young adults.  I think leadership and cohesion are a HUGE factor and the reason why there are so many upsets in recent years.  (Plus, look at teams like Iowa with 2-star players who can have great Ds.  Teams like Stanford who can beat USC.  5-star talent laden teams like ND with a widely-regarded failure as a motivator/leader (Weis) wasting huge talent.)

 

Heart is just as important as talent.

 

Here are the reasons to be excited about this team's leadership/cohesion:

1. Unwavering and repeated references to the outstanding commitment of the small group of seniors over the summer.

2. The seniors stepping up to RR and asking for permanent leaders (capitans) to be named this year.

3. Reports of Denard taking control of the offense.

4. Press favorite QB  and returning starter Tate accepting a humbling symbol everyday in front of his peers, and rising above it.

5. The hard work mention about the defense.  They seem motivated.

6. Purging of those not willing to give it their all (although that happens most years).

7. The team possibly finding motivation in the hard work done by Brock Mealer.

 

There is a difference in the tone of these comments from this year compared to the first 2 under RR.  It has not been his standard practice to repeatedly mention these things, but now he does so without prompting.  (Gone are the days of "well, we're not going to forfeit games.")  And, we did not see this level of leadership on the field last year.

 

The leadership and cohesion that seems to have developed on this team may be the biggest difference between being 6-6 (which a pure unit by unti analysis might predict) and 9-3.