Unverified Voracity Like A Bat Out Of Hell

Submitted by Brian on December 5th, 2011 at 4:30 PM

I'm just… all. Terrifying HSR photoshop:

Sugar Hoke[1]

Now you're going to have "Push It To The Limit" stuck in your head all day. Q: how did that gem escape Special K's playlist this year?

Staying with usually illegal things. Lines. They are out. The Wynn opened VT a 2.5 point favorite; my go-to-line aggregation site says Michigan actually opened –1.5. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of wiggle: right now it's ranging a full three points from M –2 to VT –1. The Mathlete's numbers have Michigan a two-point favorite.

For all the Herbstreitian complaints about the matchup here at least it seems competitive. I'd ballpark a Michigan-Kansas State line around M -10. The Wildcats are 96th in total offense and 74th in total defense; 90th in sacks, 106th in TFLs, 111th in sacks allowed. They kind of suck hard. Massive TO margin saves them. Virginia Tech is a much better team.

Silver lining to the dumbest edition of the BCS yet: at least this year it isn't serving up two woofers like they usually do. Oregon is favored by just under a touchdown. The lines for WVU-Clemson and Stanford-Okie State are around three points, and the Sugar Bowl and Cox Communications's 2AM replay of last month's LSU-Alabama game are basically pick 'ems. No Georgia-Hawaii or Louisville-Anyone.

Oof. I bet you're tired of Sparty schadenfreude. Can't stand it anymore. You are in the wrong place, sir.


Via the board. Someone with access to the Detroit News's ad manager is getting reamed in a conference room right now.

BONUS: Michigan State's complaints are laughable in many ways.

One: they are not even eligible to be selected. This isn't Michigan getting in over MSU.

Two: it's not like MSU had a slam-dunk better season than Michigan even before the Big Ten title game. If all you focus on is head to head they did, but Michigan beat ND and Nebraska. MSU got hammered by both. The computers aren't thinking about butts in seats and they give Michigan almost a six-spot advantage over MSU. And they can't take MOV into account.

Three: they are playing the exact same team Michigan is. Georgia rode a soft schedule to a conference title game in which they were destroyed. They have a tough defense and an iffy offense. Their best offensive asset is a tailback. The only difference between VT and Georgia is Georgia's decision to schedule Boise State. The only difference between the Sugar and the Outback is a day on the calendar.

I'm just going to put this here. Kork Coupons:

"Michigan sat home tonight on the couch and watched us," the senior said shortly after the game's conclusion. "We played our hearts out — you saw it. I don't see how you get punished for playing and someone else gets to sit on the couch and get what they want. "If this is the way the system is, I guess it's a broken system."

Gary Danielson, devil. Braves and Birds on the SEC's chief propagandist:

In 2006, Danielson and the SEC on CBS team spent the fourth quarter of Florida’s win over Arkansas lobbying for the Gators to play for the national title over Michigan.  Their argument was based on the fact that Florida had played a tougher schedule, which they demonstrated with a graphic comparing the teams that the Gators and Wolverines had beaten.  Guess what metric CBS did not use yesterday?  You guessed it, the one that favored the SEC team in 2006, but cut against the SEC team in 2011. … At times during the fourth quarter yesterday, I felt like I was at a mediation, watching one side make a PowerPoint presentation as to their strengths of their case and the weaknesses of mine. 

… CBS apparently has the sports equivalent of Roger Ailes doing its SEC games and they think that no one remembers their convention speech in 2006.

How's "the spread is dead" working out for you, Danielson? Since he has no memory of the spread vs spread title game last year he probably thinks the answer is "really well!"

Gary Danielson, angel. Danielson advocated a playoff system nearly identical to the MGoPlayoff in the fourth quarter of the SEC Championship game. I don't care if he eats babies as long as he's spreading the gospel of a restricted-field playoff.

Heisman. In other hopelessly broken college football institutions, Feldman makes the RGIII for Heisman case, which can be stated thusly: Baylor and their 114th-ranked defense (yardage) beat OU and Texas in the same year. BAYLOR. BAAAAAAAYLORRRRRRRRRR. Feldman has Mathieu second, which I also agree with. Bruce Feldman for king of college football.

This week in "Drew Sharp should be fired." Another blah blah trolling column has this gem in it:


Drew Sharp thinks the Big 12 still has a championship game and that 9-3 Oklahoma has played 13 games.

Etc.: Carvin Johnson talks personal style. It's on the internet! Sugar Bowl's contract with OSU on scribd indicates that Michigan will probably be the away team since they are lower-ranked. Sugar wallpaper.


Should Be Working

December 5th, 2011 at 4:43 PM ^

What makes Kork Cousins honestly believe that Michigan players would actually spend their time sitting on a couch watching them play? Maybe if it was Ohio, but not State. They have better things to do like give blood, write a novel, recycle or donate money to underfunded school systems that have had laptops stolen from them.


December 5th, 2011 at 5:21 PM ^

Pretty obvious that somewhere along the line the Michigan gravitas butthurt Drew Sharp.  Almost everything he writes is about bringing UM down a notch.  From his useless columns on how the BiG is no longer elite (a sideways dig at OSU/UM), to columns about how UM is satisfied playing for BiG championships only, to how UM needs Urban Meyer due to the lost luster of the rivalry, to now claiming MSU got jobbed.  Does it ever stop?  Can anyone recall one column where he praised UM?  I live in Arlington, VA but if I saw Drew Sharp I'd have some choice words.


December 5th, 2011 at 6:18 PM ^

Seriously, how does a man that knows less about football than the average fan have a job writing about football?! I strongly believe that to punish him he needs to be tazed every time he screws up this badly. I will start the NPO, it will be called Taze Drew Sharp Every Time He Pulls A Drew Sharp (TDSETHPADS) for short.

Who's with me?!?!


December 5th, 2011 at 4:54 PM ^

on the Sugar Bowl doesn't seem right.  VT's best wins were against a couple middling 8-4 ACC teams and they were absolutely destroyed twice by the only good team on their schedule, Clemson.  The ACC's a joke this year and VT's non-conference schedule was creampuff city.  Based on this record, how is VT favored over Michigan?  Who knows what will happen a month from now in one game but based on the evidence, Michigan should be the favorite at this time.


December 5th, 2011 at 4:57 PM ^

Our best wins were Nebraska and Notre Dame, and the B1G was down this year.  FWIW, I agree with you, and we didn't get blown out in our losses like they did, but it's not like our resume is lightyears better. 


December 5th, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^

Cannot understate the value of improvement over the course of the season given a first year staff.  First four or five games Borges was trying to figure out what to run on O, and down the stretch he solved it and UM made a major jump in quality that wasn't evident when we played MSU so early on.

Not to knock MSU though.  Gotta hand it to Dantonio.  To get them that close to a BiG championship is impressive, but alas, even Dantonio cannot change the tried and tested law of Sparty No physics.


December 5th, 2011 at 4:55 PM ^

on the Sugar Bowl doesn't seem right.  VT's best wins were against a couple middling 8-4 ACC teams and they were absolutely destroyed twice by the only good team on their schedule, Clemson.  The ACC's a joke this year and VT's non-conference schedule was creampuff city.  Based on this record, how is VT favored over Michigan?  Who knows what will happen a month from now in one game but based on the evidence, Michigan should be the favorite at this time.


December 6th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^

"Let's get one thing straight.  I never fucked over anybody in my life didn't have it coming to them.  You got that?  All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one.  Do you understand?  That piece of shit Dantonio up there, I never liked him, I never trusted him.  For all I know he had me set up and had my friend Angel Fernandez killed.  But that's history.  I'm here, he's not.  Do you wanna go on with me, you say it.  You don't, then you make a move."

"I like you Brady, there is no lying in you".


December 6th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^

I kill a Buckeye for fun, but for a BCS bid, I gonna carve him up real nice.


 What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of fuckin' assholes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way!


RHammer - SNRE 98

December 5th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^

...Brian has to actually read Drew Sharp's drivel; although I try to ignore his "work" as much as possible, the efforts of those who suffer through it and bring us the occasional bite of idiocy-laced nougat from him are appreciated


December 5th, 2011 at 5:41 PM ^

So here's the thing about Matthieu: he's not that good in coverage.  It's not like Woodson where you had a blanket cover guy who made plays elsewhere because he was bored crushing the best WR on the other team every week.  He makes spectacular plays but also fucks up a lot.

Claiborne should be the Heisman candidate on the LSU defense.


December 5th, 2011 at 5:45 PM ^

Hold up a second. Who's trying to pull a fast one? That picture of Hoke is clearly photoshopped! Hoke would never have that picture taken without pointing. I think we can dismiss this picture as faked.



December 5th, 2011 at 5:50 PM ^

I'm clearly biased, considering I bet on Trent to win the Heisman at 12/1 before the season and have a rooting interest in what happens Saturday night, but I just don't see how you can give it to RG3 when his team got completely destroyed twice this year. He's great, and I'm sort of resigned to the fact that he's going to win it, but I don't think he should.


December 5th, 2011 at 6:05 PM ^

I get that it's not a team award. I'm just saying, based on the way it's been awarded in the past, you'd think Trent would win. I have a feeling that trend gets bucked with RG3 though. Could have paid for my flight to New Orleans, but RG3 had to go out and put the final nail in the Heisman coffin :(


December 5th, 2011 at 6:38 PM ^

the points between 3 on either side don''t mean nearly as much as elsewhere.

A hypothetical 5 point difference between Michigan -2.5 and VT - 2.5 is small and it wouldn't take that much money to swing it from one to the other.

If there was a 5 point difference between say Michigan -2.5 and Michigan -7.5, that would be HUGE.

All that is to say that the 4 point difference in the current lines is conceivable and the two books should settle around the same number in short time.


December 5th, 2011 at 6:51 PM ^

I've never checked this but my suspicion is that fewer games end with a spread less than three now. Games that would have ended in a tie, or been decided by 1 because somebody went for 2 late to avoid the tie, now go to OT and are usually decided by 3 (or 6 or 7), and almost never by less than 2.


December 5th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^

Games tend to get near a 3 point spread either way mainly because a slight consensus usually emerges amongst the professional bettors and it doesnt take much of their money (the sportsbooks know big $ bets come from pros and those bets move the lines) to move it.

Games end near 3 usually because the numbers between 0 and 2.5 aren't as valuable.  There are also considerations where a book wants a line to end on a whole # in general, in this case 3.

In those cases, they just adjust the price (such as bet 120 to win 100 instead of the standard 110 to win 100) instead of adjusting the line a 1/2 point or so.  What this does is hedges against parlay risk and teaser risk (Standard teaser bets move a line 6 points in exchange for worse odds).  Most 'pushes' in one game of  teaser make the whole bet lose.  Pushes in parlay bets take that game out of the parlay and the bets pays out according to the remaining games.  So in those instances being on a whole point, especially a common one such as 3, is valuable to the sportsbook. 


December 5th, 2011 at 7:06 PM ^

Brian great work as always.

I have two points of contention.  The first one I've brought up before.

1.  Turnovers seem to fall on the side of the teams with the good coaching and better players year in and year out. I've never heard one guy that I talked to who played beyond high school say that turnovers were a matter of luck or fortune. There is physicality, tackling angles, specific ways of going for the ball in pursuit, and specific ways of baiting and scheming a quarterback into throwing picks. Kansas State, cited in your article, should be considered a good team because they get turnovers/don't turn it over, same as we would consider a team good if they had big yardage totals for the year. 

2. The restricted field playoff you endorse would be in existence right now except that the law suits would fly from states and conferences that would be shut out of a reasonable path of participation. The Big conferences do want the money an expanded playoff would bring, but they don't want to share. The BCS is borderline illegal and has drawn at least one lawsuit for restraint of trade that I am aware of. It's biggest problem it has is it ain't making nearly the money that could be made by a playoff.  

Expanding the current system would double or triple the money, but it will only stay litigation free if you give every division 1 team a reasonable path for participation from day 1 of the season.  States that are using tax dollars to subsidize athletic departments drowning in red ink aren't going to sit idly by while a few big schools dominate the pie. 

My thinking is why not give all 11 division 1 conferences a seat at the table and throw in 5 at large teams and make december the greatest college football month instead of a blow off full of crappy bowl games?  You could play with the money and seeding to make sure the big money goes to the big conferences regardless of outcome.  Take the concepts that have made the NCAA basketball tournament so successful and apply them to football.  

Everyone would get fat, there would still be 11 or 12 very deserving elite big conference schools in the mix, you'd have cool cinderella teams from the MAC and Sun Belt. You could even actually make strength of schedule a primary factor in seeding and at large bids. So instead of that 4th non-conference game against Eastern, Michigan would have incentive to grab that home and home with Georgia Tech or Arizona.

Another thing is this would stop conference realignment cold. We all love that. Fans would love it, the players would love it. There would still be bowls for all the people who think mediocre corporate sponsored exhibition games are a great watch.





December 5th, 2011 at 7:58 PM ^

I think the base premise of your argument is flawed. A 6 team playoff is more inclusive I feel. A 12-0 Boise, TCU, etc would almost certainly be in the top six. The system now pretty much only allows a non AQ National Champion if every major conference team has 2 losses. Something I can't ever see happening.


December 5th, 2011 at 7:15 PM ^

Danielson advocated a playoff system nearly identical to the MGoPlayoff in the fourth quarter of the SEC Championship game.

Except he betrayed his true feelings by saying two things:

  • If LSU lost the SEC championship game to Georgia, they should still go to the BCS championship game, and
  • If they lost to Alabama in the BCS championship game they should still get at least a share of the #1 ranking.

So what Danielson was really saying is that he wants a playoff but he also wants the opportunity to make sure favored SEC teams aren't penalized if they lose in such a playoff.


December 5th, 2011 at 8:42 PM ^

And then I'd put Ball 3.  Not so much b/c he's a slam dunk over Richardson/Luck, but Danielson convinced me to not vote for 1 and leave the other off my ballot.  

Funny thing about Danielson.  We're all convinced he's an SEC slappy, but Feinbaum and his 80-IQ minions went crazy over his idea that LSU should be voted number 1 in the AP regardless of the outcome of the BCS game.  

As for the Richardson-Ball comparisons, the one thing you have to give Richardson over Ball is that TR ran against better rush defenses according to the S&P rankings.


December 5th, 2011 at 9:01 PM ^

For his anti-Michigan bias in the comments section of the "Michigan didn't deserver to jump Michigan State for BCS bowl."


Post #1: "Drew Sharp is posting drivel because somewhere along the way, someone at the University of Michigan slighted him. Drew's articles have a personal tone to them. His questions toward Coach Hoke during his hiring demonstrated further bitterness. In Drew's mind, he wants Michigan to be a "regional" program."


Post #2: "Wonder what Drew might think if someone says: Drew didn't deserve to get into Michigan, he can thank affirmative action.  

Putting aside Drew's bitterness for his alma mater, congrats to Michigan for such a turnaround between last season to this season. Congrats to Coach Hoke for winning Big 10 coach of the year honors. Congrats to Michigan for earning their 10 win season! Go Blue, BEAT VIRGINIA TECH!"

What did Michigan do to Drew Sharp to make him so angry? Are his articles just that good at causing anger that he gets more publicity and thus the Free Press approves them?