Profiling some successful rebuilding seasons
This season had two possible trajectories: reload or rebuild. As Brian succinctly stated in his season preview, "This is a transition year between The Year and The Year, unless it isn't." And while many fans donned their maize-colored glasses in the preseason prediction threads, hoping for the lucky breaks to go our way en route to another 10-win season, the fancystats suggested that it was more likely to be a rebuilding year. Bill C. prognosticated before the season that "this program is probably a year away from ignition."
"They'll have to get lucky on a couple freshmen and one right tackle, but teams have been luckier. Just not Michigan." -Brian Cook
For innumerable reasons (some within and many out of the team's control), alllllllll of which have been very clearly hashed out on this site, this was, in fact, a rebuilding season. The issue now becomes whether or not this was a "successful" rebuilding season. The MGoStaff posed themselves the question "are we on track?" The answers ranged from "mostly, yes" to "of course, yes." Ace compared the roster this year to the projected one for next season and concluded, "This year hasn’t been very fun. Next year will be."
While we can debate and analyze the quality of this season, in isolation, until we've beat the dead horse to a maize and blue pulp, the fact is that we won't know whether or not it did its job as a rebuilding one until after next season is over. What we can do, however, is partake in every Michigan fan's favorite pastime: make predictions about whether or not next year is finally "The Year", or, as Bill C. quipped, "Ignition."
But first, here is Seth describing his take on a baseline definition of The Year:
"The level I want to be at is Bo--i.e. go into every season with a real shot to win it all--and last year's team is a good example of that level. Football is too random to ask for more: Ohio State is the best team in the country this year by S&P+ and has two losses; Carr won a national championship with the Griese offense and lost to Illinois with senior Tom Brady. It's natural for your human brain to try to replace randomness with patterns that don't exist, and favor whichever pattern best serves your interests. If you haven't learned to keep those instincts in check this deep into adulthood, don't be surprised when your contributions to the marketplace of ideas are treated like they don't have any value."
The Year is a season in which the team makes a legitimate title run and is only a couple lucky of breaks away from ultimate glory.
A look back at rebuilding years that preceded "Ignition"
With all that in mind, I decided to profile some recent rebuilding seasons for other teams led by high-quality coaches that were followed by The Year and successfully "ignited" those programs. I chose the seasons based on a recent diary by MGoUser Eye of the Tiger that looked at win totals of elite coaches in the mythical Year 3 and Year 4 of their tenures.*
This analysis is descriptive, not predictive. It is designed to see how Michigan compares to 12 successful rebuilding teams across a small collection of metrics. I do discuss my interpretation of the results, but that is simply my fan perspective.
*Note: I did not include any season prior to 2007, when S&P rankings first started.
Quality of Wins vs. Losses
Higher is better on the left. Lower is better on the right.
While Michigan managed to more-or-less hit its expected win total of 8.5 games, one of the biggest knocks on the team is that they didn't beat any good opponents. This criticism holds true relative to this selection of successful rebuilding teams. The quality of Michigan's wins (as defined by the winning percentage of the teams Michigan beat this season, removing the game against Michigan to control for record) is only higher than those of the 2011 Florida State squad.
Looking closer at the 12 successful rebuilding teams, they averaged 0.33 wins against teams ranked between #20-25 in the final AP poll, and 0.58 wins against teams ranked between #10-20. Only 4/12 teams had no wins against Top 25 opponents.
In contrast, the quality of Michigan's losses is higher than any of the other 12 rebuilding teams' losses. All 4 teams that beat Michigan are ranked in the Top 25. The other 12 teams averaged 3.33 losses to teams in the Top 25 of the final AP poll, but also 2.00 losses to unranked opponents. Your take on this stat could be a glass half-full or half-empty one. It's always good to beat the teams you are supposed to beat, but it could be easier to fix an issue with losing to overmatched opponents than it is to get over the hump of losing to good teams.
Average Margin of Wins vs. Losses
Higher is better on the left. Lower is better on the right.
Another concern this season was that Michigan struggled to put away some clearly inferior squads early in the year. While the games against Cincinnati or Air Force never reached Hoke danger levels, they weren't the blowouts that they probably should have been given how the seasons of those two teams played out.
However, when we look at Michigan's average margin of victory compared to the other 12 rebuilding teams, it is greater than the median. On the other hand, Michigan's average margin in losses is worse than only that of 2011 Penn State (15.50).
The important confounding variable here is that Michigan beat worse opponents and lost to better ones than the other 12 rebuilding teams. This could potentially inflate the average margin of victory and deflate the average margin of loss in this comparson. Here is the chart of the 12 teams' average margin of victories against unranked teams and average of margin of losses against ranked teams:
Michigan still performs right at the median in terms of average margin of victory, but is still worse than 10/12 teams in terms of average margin of defeat. While the numbers are what they are, Michigan did look infinitely better against OSU than they did against PSU. Additionally, Michigan was in the game against Wisconsin until the injury to Peters completely deflated the team, which helped Wisconsin pull away. And Michigan was one possession away from tying beating OSU until the O'Korn armpunt, so an 11 point loss isn't qualitatively worse than 7 points. I don't know how the losses for the other 12 rebuilding teams compare, but I'm not too worried about this stat.
S&P Rankings*
*Michigan rankings are prior to OSU game
Not surprisingly, Michigan's defense compares favorably to the rebuilding teams, whereas the offense does not. I'll let the rankings speak for themselves, but the encouraging thing to me is that 4/12 rebuilding teams had worse passing attacks than ours. Given the youth at so many positions, the multitude of injuries, and the limited roster turnover, I think that Michigan stacks up very well to the other teams in the S&P rankings.
I have already posted that Michigan has historically followed up disappointing 8-4 seasons very well in the past. Here, I looked beyond the record to compare this season to those of 12 successful rebuilding teams. The advanced stats all suggest that this team can make the same leap the other ones achieved. The biggest obstacle, and one that many of the successful rebuilding teams had already overcome, is something that every fan already knows too well: win the big games.
November 26th, 2017 at 6:50 PM ^
Is it just me or does our season sit on the very large shoulders of one Mr. Grant Newsome? If he returns to what he was I really like our chances. If he cannot play and we have a new LT and return JBB/Ulizio, it looks much more grim to beat the NDs, OSUs, PSUs, and Wiscy's on the schedule.
November 26th, 2017 at 6:58 PM ^
I think we have enough young tackles in Spanellis, Steuber, Hudson, etc to keep us from having to play Ulizio for sure and hopefuly JBB. It wil be much better with Newsome in there though.
November 26th, 2017 at 7:05 PM ^
But similar tough looking schedule in '85 (after 6-6 in '84) - ND, SC, Mary were all ranked when we played them. At MSU. At Iowa. OSU, etc.
Same in '97 (after run of 4 loss seasons) - Colorado ranked, ND was supposed to be good before season, at MSU, at PSU, at Wisky, vs. OSU, vs. Iowa
Both seasons the key to our success was:
1. Great QB play
2. Good enough O line to run the ball in most cases
3. Stingy D
4. Turnover margin
I'm sure hoping Newsome can play again - even if just to know his hard work has paid off. This time, HE gets to wipe out a Wisky player!
I'm hoping the external pessimism is high (Michigan sucks, etc.) and Finebaum is crowing until the ND game.
November 26th, 2017 at 7:26 PM ^
to ever expect Newsome to return to his former self is wishful thinking..
hope is not a plan !!
love the guy but you have to plan that he will never play another down....
if he does... bonus !
November 26th, 2017 at 6:56 PM ^
Actually they were a possession away from winning outright if O'Korn could have driven them to a TD and used enough of the clock. Anyway, good analysis and I think everything is setup for a big bounce back year in 2018. The schedule is not kind but good teams play well on the road. It's time Michigan starts winning those games.
November 26th, 2017 at 6:59 PM ^
7-6 and 4-4 in B1G to 12-2 and 8-0 in B1G regular season.
Some factors:
1. Schedule (home vs away and Non Conf)
2. QB play
3. Turnover margin
4. Key plays in close games
5. Refs
Iowa had all 5 work for them in 2015 until the MSU loss in Indy.
We know the schedule next year is brutal, on paper at least.
But the next three are in our control
Look at our 3 close losses this year -
MSU game (Isaac fumble, McKeon fumbled cost us 3 pts, McDoom drop, etc.) and -5 in TO margin
Wisky - goal line fumble, 3rd and long conversions on long TD drive, 3rd down PI call, Peters knockout
OSU - Metellus drop, JOK missed passes, arm punt, etc. don't recover JT's fumble, etc., lose contain on same side of field and 2 different QBs burn us, etc.
November 26th, 2017 at 7:16 PM ^
November 26th, 2017 at 7:29 PM ^
your cut off for "historic" mean?
How does our performance in 1991 have anything to do with our performance last year, this year, or next year?
How does Rich Rod's 3-9 season have anything to do with this upcoming season's expectations?
November 26th, 2017 at 7:45 PM ^
November 26th, 2017 at 7:51 PM ^
November 26th, 2017 at 8:52 PM ^
that comprise over a quarter of your (still arbitrary) sample size.
My point is that the idea of "regression to the historical mean" is totally meaningless given that history has zero direct effect on future performance.
I wrote in this post what I think are reasonable expectations: achieving or building to seasons "in which [the] team makes a legitimate title run and is only a couple lucky of breaks away from ultimate glory."
We already managed that last year. There is no reason to look back at the Rich Rod and Hoke years as a basis to predict whether or not we will achieve the same in future seasons.
November 26th, 2017 at 9:31 PM ^
November 26th, 2017 at 9:49 PM ^
Michigan State and Clemson are two perfect examples of how much an elite coach can change a program.
As befuggled mentioned above, the college football landscape totally changed after the NCAA set scholarship limits. The parity in the Big Ten has never been higher. It is no longer reasonable to expect Michigan to win the Big Ten consistently. But there is no reason not to expect Michigan to perform just as well as MSU, which has had 2 seasons that were arguably as good as or better than any of Bo's best. Michigan can reasonably be expected to regularly field teams that are at least competitive in the division.
November 26th, 2017 at 10:06 PM ^
November 26th, 2017 at 10:34 PM ^
history and program standards. I don't think there were any "systemic" problems with The Michigan Football Program this year. The disappointing results were solely caused by youth (stemming from Hoke's recruiting failures), injuries, bad luck, and some poor coaching here and there.
I think your take is rooted in way too much feelingsball.
November 26th, 2017 at 9:51 PM ^
I guess I didn't care enough, or live early enough, to ever get fully caught up in the Bo mythos. He always struck me as a very good regular-season coach who struggled to win bowl games. He did well with the advantages he had, and he won a bunch of games and kept Michigan consistently at the top of the sport.
This has been discussed elsewhere, but there were 2 Bo eras. From 1969-1978, he averaged 9.6 wins and 1.5 losses; he never won a bowl game, but with so few opportunities that's not his fault. But from 1979 until his retirement, he averaged a shade under 9 wins and and lost 3. Michigan became what they've been for some time now; a good team with spurts of greatness. That's sort of the steady state for all really good college programs. But to say stuff like "Michigan has failed to live up to the standard Bo set 30 years ago" is whitewashing history. Maybe he won a couple more conference titles, and the RR/Hoke eras were a step down, but this is what Michigan football has looked like for most of our lifetimes. And that's fine to me because they can still reach the pinnacle with the right breaks. But I'm done with the revisionist history.
November 26th, 2017 at 11:09 PM ^
Well the scholarships went from unlimited (?) to 105 after title IX was passed sometime in the early 70s. And then to 95 during the late 70s? Think 85 was in 1992. Anyway, the first two changes were certainly is a factor in the emerging parity in college football and then the higher # of losses later on once the Big 2/Little 8 era was over.
Also, I'd probably divide his tenure up differently. I think you can make a case that his last 5 years from 85-89 he had a team that was effectively as good as any team in the country for 4 of those 5 years (obviously not 87). The 88 and 89 teams went toe to toe with the national championships each year and arguably should have won both games. 85 and 86 were equally stout especially on defense. That was probably peak Michigan football in the modern era, with the usual sprinkling of facepalm moments to lose games that we should not have.
November 27th, 2017 at 9:46 AM ^
and especially for a younger person it probably does come across as a certain amount of "mythos." If you lived through the time, though, Bo was a personality and so much more than a coach. The 1970s football attendance experience is difficult to describe in words for anyone who wasn't there... the magic of Bo, Canham and Ufer was unique. I can't get my kids to fully understand it either.
Bo was such a legend and so loved, his passing had an undeniable and lasting effect on the entire program. Your numbers are on the money; the Bo mystique if you will was way beyond numbers.
November 27th, 2017 at 12:46 PM ^
November 26th, 2017 at 9:21 PM ^
That's when the scholarship limitations went down to 85 (see here). When Bo started at Michigan, scholarships were (theoretically) unlimited, and during his tenure went to 105 and then down to 95, before going to the current 85 under Moeller. You'll notice Bo's record was better in the first half of his career than in the second half, and this is a big reason why.
November 26th, 2017 at 7:24 PM ^
in the room is...
1 - 5 against MSU & OSU... adding the other hated rival ND next year..
JH needs to turn this around starting next year or the drum for change will start to beat,
rightfully so...
November 26th, 2017 at 7:38 PM ^
But solid QB play, a running game that can move the ball in the 4th quarter, a D that forces FGs on short fields, etc.
I think MSU reverts back a bit next year without getting the favorable TO margin.
ND isn't that great. I'm just hoping the hype is all in their favor next year and everyone is trashing JH all off-season long. Imagine his intensity and that of the staff and players.
OSU - well we'll see - but 11-1 would be great, 10-2 with a Big 6 bowl (and a win this time) would be really nice too.
2019 is the year our schedule is tailor made for a NC. Just get back to 10+ wins next year.
November 26th, 2017 at 10:13 PM ^
...that 1-5 record includes: a miracle finish by MSU in 2015; a royal screw-job in Columbus in 2016; and a game in which merely competent play by our third-string QB would very likely have won the ballgame against OSU in 2017. JH and the Wolverines have had some horrendous luck these last few years. Go Blue!
November 26th, 2017 at 10:37 PM ^
Sooooo...We are NOT 1-5 against our rivals? I'm confused...
November 27th, 2017 at 1:35 AM ^
The record is what it is, but 1-5 with a ton of close, terribly unlucky losses makes me more optimistic about the future than if those 5 losses had all been blowouts. Sure, the mental hump of losing big games may be relevant, but what is more likely: Michigan keeps getting unlucky, or luck eventually evens out?
November 27th, 2017 at 10:26 AM ^
November 27th, 2017 at 11:52 PM ^
Same thing against Indiana and Minnesota in 2015.
The problem is partially luck and partially that OSU is the Alabama of the North. They never have a down year. Meyer is averaging less than 1 loss in conference play per year. That means they win all the games where Michigan has a down year and maybe we split the remaining games if we're lucky.
December 18th, 2017 at 1:32 AM ^
If people are going to point out the close losses as a positive, then it is also fair/balanced to point out the close wins as negatives as well:
- Minnesota 2015
- Indiana 2015
- Wisconsin 2016
- Indiana 2016
- Indiana 2017
Heck, even Air Force, Cincinnati and Purdue gave us a scare for 2-3 quarters this year.
November 26th, 2017 at 10:13 PM ^
...that 1-5 record includes: a miracle finish by MSU in 2015; a royal screw-job in Columbus in 2016; and a game in which merely competent play by our third-string QB would very likely have won the ballgame against OSU in 2017. JH and the Wolverines have had some horrendous luck these last few years. Go Blue!
November 26th, 2017 at 7:32 PM ^
We are NOT ready to be as good as OSU - need some more years to build what Urban has.
The bounce back year is what I'm looking for - Bo never had 2 "off" years in a row. Lloyd never had 2 "off" years in a row - even the 4-loss '95 and '96 but had wins over OSU.
After drinking beer post game yesterday, perhaps with dulled senses, I thought over the crap year we just lived thru - but we had a chance to win OSU last year and this year in the final minutes - different from Hoke, who always played OSU well, we are not losing to Rutgers, at home vs. Maryland, Utah, Minn - and needing last minute stops to beat Akron, UConn, a cfrappy NW team, etc.
I'm old enough to have been around and grimaced at the end of '79, '84, '87, etc. seasons wondering if we had lost our edge - only to be blessed with '80, '85, '88 with wins over MSU, OSU, and 2 RB and 1 Fiesta Bowl win.
JH deserves his chance to pull a Bo and have a "bad" UM season followed by one we can enjoy on YouTube game by game.
November 26th, 2017 at 8:25 PM ^
but here is my last diary comparing this year to previous 8-4 Michigan seasons.
November 27th, 2017 at 10:05 AM ^
November 26th, 2017 at 8:33 PM ^
November 26th, 2017 at 9:27 PM ^
And Michigan was one possession away from tying OSU until the O'Korn armpunt, so an 11 point loss isn't qualitatively worse than 7 points.
We were actually one possession away from beating OSU (it was 24-20).
November 26th, 2017 at 9:39 PM ^
to forget the details of the game.
November 26th, 2017 at 11:25 PM ^
I'll echo the rest of the comments in that this is really interesting stuff and gives me some optimism for next year. Outside of the rebuilding, I'd be curious to see a breakdown of how many starters each of those teams returned (that data might be difficult to track down, however). Michigan is going to bring back what 17 starters? And Ruiz might be an upgrade on Kugler.
November 27th, 2017 at 9:49 AM ^
You do a really nice job with your charts.
November 27th, 2017 at 3:47 PM ^
I can only surmise you left out Saban's LSU teams since they predated the emergence of the S&P+ metrics. Of course, Eye of the Tiger's post you referenced mentions this important team w.r.t. the subject of re-building (not to mention, National Championships). I would also bet dollars to donuts that Eye of the Tiger has a dual-allegiance with the Cajun-Brady Hoke-lovin' Bayou Bengals, but I digress.
The 2002 LSU team was in its 3rd season under Saban, and went 8-5 (62%), after going 10-3 the year before. LSU was 8-4 in Saban's 1st season, a 5-win improvement over Gerry DiNardo's last team, who went 3-8. Of course, LSU went 13-1 (93%) and won the National Championship in Saban's 4th season, which might be argued as a successful rebuild. Leading up to that, during the 2002 rebuilding year, LSU went 1-3 against ranked opponents, including 0-2 against top ten opponents.
Applying your Quality & Margin of Wins schema, the losing percentage of 2002 LSU's victorious opponents was 27% (much worse than UM Team 138). The winning percentage of its losing opponents was 44% (the same as UM Team 138). Also, LSU had an average margin of loss of 18 points (4 pts. worse than UM), and and an average margin of victory of 22 points (4 pts. better than UM).
November 27th, 2017 at 8:14 PM ^
November 27th, 2017 at 11:55 PM ^
Michigan 2018 National Champions confirmed then
November 27th, 2017 at 5:34 PM ^
Could you please explain? If it's "the year before a team really took off," then it doesn't mean "rebuilding." Oregon in 2009, for example, wasn't a rebuild. Kelly was the OC for the previous coach and retained much of Belloti's staff (and Belloti became the AD).
If you want to find controlled comparisons for Michigan in 2018, look at Florida 2008, Clemson 2011, etc.
November 27th, 2017 at 8:11 PM ^
Comments