things were bad all around when Bump was doing his best
Bad times man
Could this year be the first year that all three major sports missed the post season?
I tried to look it up but realized I was wasting too much time doing so.
Thanks for the leg work. Sorry for bringing it up, though.
This isn't actually that hard to do. Michigan had a 30-some year bowl streak starting with Bo and a 22-year tourney streak starting early in the Red era. Basketball made the tournament the last two years, so we start with 1974 and go back from there. So:
- Hockey had a tourney drought from 1965 to 1976(!)
- Basketball made it in '74, reaching the Elite Eight, but hadn't made the tourney since 1966 previously.
- It was Rose or nothing for football back then, and nothing happened in 1974 and 1973
So, 1973. Meanwhile, the late sixties were not much fun to be a Michigan fan, with no postseason appearances from the big three from 66 to the 1970 Rose Bowl.
Hockey still has a shot to avoid the trifecta. Also HARBAUGH
Why in the world does a coach as good as Beilein continually pull the autobench? Which is basically taking the penalty for a crime you haven't committed yet. Also, what's the team's +/- in the last 5 minutes of the first half this season? That seems like when the autobench would be hurting us. Thanks.
Funny you should ask that, I was just about to—
BAH GAWD THAT'S ZACH JONES'S MUSIC
Given the discussion via both the website and Twitter today railing against the autobench, I put together the attached file to see what's actually going on. Thought you might be interested in the results. Dan Dakich said something interesting during the broadcast about people not talking enough about the importance of the time at the end of the first half on the outcome of a game. I've always thought this, as well, so I also put in a +/- on Michigan's performance from the final media timeout of the first half to halftime [in both autobench and non-autobench situations].
The document is here if you want to look at the details. The summary data follows.
The first column is Michigan's overall margin at the end of the game. The second is Michigan's performance in the last four minutes of the first half in all games; the third is Michigan's margin in autobench situations.
parens means negative numbers
The conclusion seems to be that John Beilein has not adapted his autobench policy to the injuries of Caris LeVert and Derrick Walton, and is still coaching like he has solid depth. This is emphatically not true, as the result of the autobench today put Andrew Dakich and Sean Lonergan on the floor for extended time.
Anyway, like I said, I thought you might find this interesting.
This was pre-Northwestern but with the only autobench in NW coming from Kam Chatman it's still accurate. Most of Michigan's deficit in Big Ten play post-injuries has come in autobench situations.
Autobench was a reasonable strategy earlier in the year when the guy coming off the bench was usually Spike (or Spike was the autobench subject). Lately it has gone very un-well.
These are tiny sample sizes that you can't draw any statistically significant conclusions from, but they do confirm the eyeball test. Michigan scored once in ten possessions at the end of the first half when Irvin and MAAR were benched, and that was the difference. MAAR's absence in the MSU game corresponded with a huge MSU run that put that game out of reach.
It's one thing to bring Dawkins or MAAR or Spike into the game because one of your guys has a couple fouls. It's another to have a lineup with Lonergan and Dakich on the floor.
The other recent controversy.
I watch the multiple M games with my Michigan grad neighbor and occasionally we get into battles about Michigan coaching strategy. This came into fruition during the NW game in both the regular time and the OT. I have always held the strategy: if it is under the shot clock (35 seconds left ) with a lead of over 2 points you should foul with the ball under ½ court with the opposing player in no act of shooting. This holds true especially in the 1-and-1 and with a timeout (to escape the trap by calling timeout). My theory is that you give the opposing team no chance to tie the game on their possession. Add to that if the ball is brought up court by a poor free throw shooter, to miss the 1-and-1 reduces dramatically to the 2 points awarded. I also have a time out to call in the event of an inbounds trap. The net is you give up 2 points max up by one with an out of bounds pass and a timeout. You inbounds the pass up by one shooting a 1:1 probably immediately fouled.
My neighbor argues that playing good defense is a valid strategy, citing the NW player stepping out of bounds giving Michigan the ball.
We would have won the game at Northwestern if we deployed this strategy in both the regular time and/or the overtime. We let them win by two miracle Trey Burke shots to tie that never should have happened. Please convince me by math that I am not insane that the “prevent” defense in college basketball is not better than in the NFL and insanely underutilized.
I am #teamfoul all the way, but any discussion of this has to point out the most extensive study of this decision on the college level was done by Ken Pomeroy and it didn't show what you think it might:
W L OT Win% Cases Foul 122 5 11 92.0 138 Defend 598 2 76 93.5 676
(That post was spurred by Ben Brust's DEATH TO BACKBOARDS heave, because of course.)
Now: fouling does prevent OT. 13% of "defend" instances made it to an extra five minutes. 8% of "foul" instances did. The increased chance of an insta-loss offset that in a sample size that's suggestive but not definitive.
So. Despite being #teamfoul, this is the kind of game theory noodling that is way less significant than anything that gets you a single extra point over the course of 40 minutes. There are some game theory noodles that are worth exploring (fourth down decisions in football, calling your f-ing timeouts when the opponent has first and goal). This one appears to be marginal.
The more important thing is what the hell Bielfeldt was thinking when Olah set a screen for Demps in that situation. There is no way Demps should have been that open.
[After THE JUMP: Mary Sue Coleman's role in Brandongate, Mike McCray deployment, #harbaugheffect]
What about Mary Sue Coleman?
I was really impressed with your retrospective on the Brandon Era. Regrettably, I didn't read the article until this weekend so I could not be a part of the feedback that you put into your aftermath post. One huge omission was any mention of Mary Sue Coleman, both in the original piece and in the "Things I missed" section the next day.
Why would she be left out? She not only hired him, but seemingly gave him full autonomy to change anything he wanted to in the department. There were some shadowy rumors about MSC's involvement in athletics during her tenure here (none of which I believed) but her allowance of Dave is very much rooted in a sobering reality. How did she get let off the hook?
Coleman's job was, and Schlissel's job is, much bigger than just the athletic department. By most accounts she did a great job raising funds and building stuff, and those seem to be the only metrics anyone really cares about these days. By standard accounting she did her job in most respects. I question a lot about the direction of the American university system, but asking her to fix it is asking her to be a sui generis superstar instead of just adequate. Big institutions don't get those kind of leaders much because everything's a compromise.
But, yeah, she deserves a big fat raspberry for her handling of the athletic department. Hiring Brandon, who was one of the key people who got her hired in the first place, was a clear conflict of interest. And as time would tell, Brandon was a terrible fit. The cherry on top was extending Brandon just before her departure. Brandon was no threat to depart; Coleman gave him a six year contract that was 100% guaranteed just before she left. That's an attempt to take the decision-making out of the new president's hands. It turned out to be a multi-million dollar present.
That's cronyism pure and simple.
— Kirk (@kirklecureux) February 26, 2015
It depends on a few different things. For one: what is the role of the SAM in this defense? In an under the SAM is often a Jake Ryan type; when playing an over that role tends to go to the lightest, fastest, and most coverage-oriented guy. James Ross was that guy last year. In the former case, SAM is well with in the wheelhouse of a guy who runs 6'2", 240. In the latter not so much.
As for end, it is possible. Mario Ojemudia, the projected starter, isn't much bigger and Lawrence Marshall isn't bigger at all. Michigan could use some more competition there and linebacker seems set. He could get a look there. More likely they roll with what they've got, add the two Florida freshmen, and McCray competes at whatever the ILB slots are. Both of those will be open next year, after all.
The Harbaugh effect
Cracker Barrel crushed it in 2Q
And January comps accelerated...JH impact!!!!
StreetAccount Metrics Recap - Cracker Barrel Q2 Earnings
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 01:09:01 PM (GMT)
- Key operating metrics:
- Restaurant comps +7.9% vs StreetAccount consensus +3.8%
- Nov +5.6%
- Dec +6.3%
- Jan +11.4%
- Traffic +4.7%
- Average check +3.2%
- Retail comps +3.2% vs SA +4.7%
- Nov (0.6%)
- Dec +0.5%
- Jan +15%
- Cost of goods sold 34.7% vs SA 34.2% and year-ago 34.8%
- Operating margin 9.7% vs SA 8.3% and year-ago 8.5%
Good to know.