Unverified Voracity Zoom

Submitted by Brian on February 27th, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Troy Woolfolk is fast. The incoming cornerback just got done owning the 100 meters at a Texas meet:

100 — 1, Troy Woolfolk, Dulles 10.28; 2, Alvin Johnson, Lamar 10.65; 3, Cordell Riggings, Humble 10.7.

There is probably some wind-based/hand-timed mitigating factor in that number, otherwise that's a staggering time. In any case, he gap between Woolfolk and second place is giant. Hopefully he can change directions. Also of note is the 200:

200 — 1, Damien Clestine, Beaumont Ozen 21.18; 2, Darryl Stonum, Dulles 21.38; 3, John Durand, Ball 22.25.

Stonum is a wide receiver for Dulles; we lead for his services.

Oh snap. Friday's post about the CHL and USHL getting ready to throw down? Yeah...

Both NCAA schools and CHL teams claim that they can provide a university degree while chasing the dream of the NHL. The numbers state otherwise.

On a typical NCAA roster of 28, .5 players make it to the NHL, 23.5 graduate from university, and 4 do not graduate from university.

On a typical CHL roster of 25, 1 player makes it to the NHL, 4 obtain a university degree and 20 do not obtain a university degree.

In the contest to graduate players from university the NCAA wins 23.5 to CHL 4.

The question then becomes why does the CHL graduate only 16% of its player base from university while the NCAA's number is at 84%?

...says the USHL's official website(!), which then proceeds to enumerate the reasons why the CHL's much-lauded education packages hardly ever get used. I'm willing to be there's some data massaging going on there, but you can't bridge a gap that wide -- or even approach it -- just by rearranging the data. Junior advocates make an effort in the comments of this post, if you're interested in the other side.

Wonk on Michigan, noting the eerie consistency of the Wolverines under Amaker:

The Michigan theory of chaotic status quo. All Michigan events and decisions sum to zero and perpetuate the status quo in Ann Arbor. Even seemingly diametrically opposed actions work in concert to reproduce the past. (How Hegelian!)

Disagreement: the Udoh-Sims switch is posited as a defensive substitution that gets a couple shot-blockers in the game at the same time, but does Udoh's advantage in block percentage (6.4% for Sims, a staggering 11.2% for Udoh) sufficient to offset his deficit in defensive rebounding (20% for Sims, 13% for Udoh)? Udoh, like many a jumping-jack freshman (or a jumping-jack senior coughpetwaycough), tries to block everything. The corresponding void on the block leads to offensive rebounds and contributes to Michigan's crappy defensive rebounding.

Sims' removal from the starting lineup has to be explained in some other way.

About tonight. Michigan has an opportunity over the next two games to play themselves into the tournament... maybe. Drew Neitzel -- the entirety of Michigan State's offense -- has come down with the flu. He'll play tonight, but how effective he is remains to be seen. It might not mean much: this is glacially-paced college basketball, after all. Then the 14-1 but hideously-overrated Buckeyes come to Crisler. While Michigan's chances in that game aren't good, Ohio State is also not the juggernaut their record implies.

(Buckeye Commentary:

That UCLA garnered a few first place votes is not surprising but what's unexpected is the plethora, the absolute glut of talk today castigating Ohio State's win. Even the Big Ten Wonk calls us the "ugliest 14-1 team". What gives?

This type of criticism would be tolerable if vanity had any place in college basketball. Or college football? We know that well do we not after our 2002 National Championship? So, I'm still struggling why it matters that a team doesn't win pretty enough. Naturally, I'm struggling because there really isn't any answer other than it doesn't matter.

This is inaccurate. As John Hollinger pointed out in his latest ESPN blog entry, in which he defends his power ratings' placement of the Spurs, not the Mavs or Suns, #1:

...as I've been trying to beat into people's heads over and over again, point differential is a better indicator of future success than won-loss record. In other words, if you were trying to pick a game between the Mavs and Spurs tomorrow, you'd be better off ignoring the standings and looking just at point differential.

Ohio State's point differential is the best in the Big Ten (or at least their efficiency margin is, and that's a more accurate stat anyway), but it doesn't compare to Illinois 04-05, the last Big Ten team to be #1 at this late date in the season, especially since this year's edition of the Big Ten isn't good. Ohio State is an ugly team that gets in a lot of ugly games and once they're past the sacrificial #16 seed they could go out the window at any time.

Obvious disclaimer: Thad Matta could outrecruit Tommy Amaker in a KKK uniform, and his coaching is at least all right. I would swap basketball programs in a second. Etc.)

Anyway: Michigan could sneak its way into the tournament with a sweep in its final two games. I'm conflicted about this. It would obviously be nice to make the tournament, but managing to win a couple games like this wouldn't sufficiently improve my opinion of Amaker to make his inevitable retention palatable. I have seen six years of confused "motion" offenses, four years of Brent Petway waiting to throw the ball to some guard who is always cutting away from the basket and always well guarded. I have seen Amaker's often bizarre recruiting. I have seen too many turtlenecks. And I say the chances Amaker can turn the Michigan program into a consistent top 25 team are very, very low no matter the outcome of these next two games.

Etc.: Amani Toomer's divorce may well end up history's ugliest; SI does their Road Trip feature on Michigan; David Harris article; Steve Kampfer article. SMQB demolishes Dennis Dodd for taking up the cause of poor, blackballed Gary Barnett.