Correct me if I'm reading it wrong:

Illinois - orange

Purdue - gold

Wisconsin - crimson

Indiana - white

Northwestern - purple

Minnesota - brown

Iowa - yellow

Michigan State - green

Michigan - blue

Those all look correct to me except Indiana and Wisconsin.  Indiana would have been edged out after losing its first three, but with Wisconsin recently losing its 2nd, Indiana can take the lead by winning this weekend.

Your talent level graph has no y-axis. What are we looking at there?

Why not compare time remaining when a team scored the winning points as a meaningful "Margin of Victory" stat. This stat would be a good indicator of the strength of a win without biasing season long aggregations the way garbage points does.

By this stat, if a team is consistantly scoring the winning points early in games, it shows that they controlled the game. Conversely, if a team scores winning points late in games, or has winning points scored ON them early, it shows a lock of control of game.

Stat:

Victory Time = (Time remaining when winning points scored (in wins) - Time remaining when winning points scored (in losses))/Games Played

I had done an algorithmic college football ranking system that Massey published on his site.  I didn't do it this year because too busy but did in years past.  I call it MARS - minimally adjusted reduced score.  When I was coming up with it I had the same problem regarding garbage scores - how do you credit a team for dominating a game without crediting them with running up the score?  My first inclination was the scoreboard compliment to your Victory Time stat.  I used the score at the last lead change.  So for Minnesota 2011 it would have been 6-0 Michigan (PAT is a discrete score itself as a miss can decide a game).  For Minnesota this year it would have been 13-7 Michigan.  No scoring after that score altered the outcome of the game.  The problem was it is very difficult to go back in every game and manually follow the score to find the last lead change.  I would assume it would be equally as difficult finding the moment in game time when it occured.

The solution I came up with is this - what is the lowest winning score possible, assume everything after that is garbage.  Using percent of score you get the following:

The lowest winning score possible in football is 2-0.  That zero is problematic so we will assume that the game starts at a 1-1 tie.  So then the lowest winning score becomes 3-1.  75% seems high though.  In the other major sports 1-0 wins are possible (never going to happen in basketball but the theory remains) as their unit of score is one point.  If those games start at 1-1 ties, then the lowest winning score is 2-1 where percent score is (2/3) or ~67%.  Since football has a few units of score and the smallest is two points, let us assume that the game starts at a 2-2 tie, with the lowest winning score then becoming 4-2, and the percent score at (4/6) or ~67% which is in line with the other sports.  So then the minimally adjusted reduced score meant that the percent score of the victor was capped at (2/3). Any scoring where the victor accrued higher percentage than (2/3) was thrown out.

Then by definition close games are where the victor does not at least double the opponent's score.

Isn't the Nebraska/PSU game in Lincoln?

bad news, mathlete, psu is going to lincoln.  it's not in happy valley.

cluck. But fortunately for us, his manly jaw should keep him at MSU long past the time when it grows clear he doesn't cut it.

I'm okay with Narduzzi getting another gig, btw. Including with the Mafia.

You don't get analysis like this

This week’s Ron Zook Memorial Dumb Punt of the Week goes to the refs in the Michigan St Nebraska game for making Sparty punt the ball away.

on many other football blogs.  The whole diary is great, but this is wonderful.

"We would have won the game, too, if not for those meddling refs!"  /spoken in Scooby Doo villain voice/

You mention "elite level" recruiting for the late model Carr teams.  I thought his recruiting supposedly dipped a little towards the end of his coaching career.  Maybe the dip is with the RR teams with Carr recruits?

There is a time lag. The upper class players on the late Carr years were outstanding, some of the best in the country. The players he recruited those years that were upper classmen under Rodirguez, not so much.

eh..elite talent in 2015 from a recruiting ranking perspective I guess. UM can be an Elite team before that though.

Mattison and Hoke have shown that the some is greater than its parts regarding the defense. Michigan plays D way above what Rivals Def player rankings would suggest IMO.

The only thing UM is missing from being elite is a great OL play and a #1 WR. You don't need elite QB play in order to have an elite team ( as long as you have a good defense). I think with Mattison/Hoke UM will have that going forward.

Gardner next year should be plenty good enough. By just having half of Denards INTs and moving the chains via timely scrambles the O will be just fine. All UM needs to be elite team next year is for the OL recruits from the last 2 years to step in well and to find a #1 WR.

Either way, I think waiting till 2015 is way too long. KSU is elite this season and look at their rankings. They play in a tougher conf too so its not like they have a weak schedule.

Not saying it can't be done before then, but just that its unlikely to, at least before 2014. There will always be outliers like KSU but planning on being an outlier is not a very good strategy.

You aren't saying that it can't be done, thats true. But I just think that UM is only a couple positions away from being REALLY good (OL, WR). It shouldn't take 3 years to get those up to snuff esp with the OL recruiting already done the last two years.

Plus, while KSU is an outlier. How many teams recruit at "elite level" and have an elite team right now? I mean it works the other way too. You can have elite recruiting classes and not be elite. UF, LSU, FSU, OU, UGA are not in the top 5 right now but all consistently have high recruiting ie "elite talent". ND used to fall into this bucket but they have been pulling crap out there ass this season so they are still undefeated and are as a result elite.

Other than than LSU, you could argue that the other names on that list and ND (until this year) have been underachieving pretty consistently. So there are KSU's out there but there are also OU's and FSUs, and UGAs.

I think thus far that Hoke and Co have shown that they can overachieve. I guess i think that ability makes me think an elite team can come sooner than later. ie one big time WR away.

*as a caveeat, I do believe that Borges will be a lot better once Denard is gone. He just doesn't know how to really do a shotgun-spread O that well.

anyways, thanks for the work on the post/diaries. always a good read.

The o-line recruiting under Rich Rod suffered but so did the WR recruiting. RR did bring in some fast slot guys but, other than Stonum, we lacked a prototypical NFL receiver type a la Edwards, Walker, Avant, etc. Dileo, Gallon, J. Robinson, etc. have been able to make plays but we do lack the fast/stretch the field big targets and the large possession receivers of Carr's days. I think Funchess will get better and better and will turn into a great TE but we need some big target receivers. I am sure the coaches are telling Treadwell that he will be THE guy. If he is every bit as good as advertised, he would be THE guy at WR. Other than WR, the OL needs to get better. It may be a combination of not having great RBs and a average o-line but, other than Denard, we cannot get a running game going. At this point our o-line is functional but strong defenses (a la Bama) wear it down pretty quickly. I think in a few years the o-line will be solid, as the top recruits grow into their positions and the running game will consequantly improve.

Looking at the facts and ignoring them because this is Michigan Fergodsakes.

MAthlete didn't say, "We won't do well", just "We won't be Elite." Until we get our dominant o line, we will not be able to play with the Alabama's, LSU's and Oregon's of the world.

We will be relevant in the B1G, just not Elite nationally. Expect some 8-9 win seasons until these Freshman are Seniors... Then watch out World.

nothing wrong with having high expectations. I mean Hoke expects UM to compete for the Big 10 title every year or else its a failure. guess what people, we will need to go 7-1 at worst to ever win a big ten title...so 3-4 loss seasons are not going to get that done. unless we are planning on lossing 2+ OOC games a year, and I don't think UM plans on doing that.

Michigan has pretty much every advantage that can be afforded to a college football team (except for a wiliingness to be corrupt/pay players..ie cheat). No reason not to be optimistic about 10+ win seasons.

Plus, I'd say for the last 8-10 years or so a good portion of fans have been saying:

wait till Henne and Hart are seniors...

wait till Prescott Burgess is a senior

wati till Will Campbell starts..and then wait until he is a senior

wait till Tate is a senior

wait till Gardner is a senior

wait till Denard is a senior

wait till Toussiant is a senior

Now people are saying wait till 2015? sorry, thats a crock of you now what. Michigan should be an 8 loss team at the worst pretty much every season. 10+ wins shouldn't be something UM has to "build up to" with recruiting class after recruiting class and waiting for a senior laden team. Thats what the Iowas or the Wisconsins of the world need to do.

UM has pretty good talent and should always be a playmaker or two away from a title. That's a fair assesment IMO.

Just want it to be known that I'm completeld satisified with the work Hoke and Co have done. Last season, this season and expect things to be gravy going forward.

I fully expect some 8-9 win seasons to be mixed in with 10+. I mean to a large extent the game is still about catching breaks and sometimes you do and sometimes you don't.

I just don't see whats wrong with being optimistic and looking for 10+ wins seasons. I know I look for that every september...10+ wins and a BIG title/BCS bowl win.

Those should be the goal every season. Nothing wrong with that.

How is Oregon not in the Garbage Points chart? Just eyeballing it they would seem to be out in front of everyone by a mile.

All of their damage is being done in the first half and they are really pulling off early, but just able to get our in front really quickly.

Is that a flaw with the model then? Once they are beyond the "no chance the other team will come back" point spread, even if it's the first half, those would seem to be garbage points....

What's the all-time-biggest comeback in the second half? I feel like it should be anything more than 3 TD's or 24 points or something regardless of time left....

really surprised Oregon isnt on the garbage points list. Maybe its because they regularly allow so many.

defense is excellent and is a top 15 defense so they don't allow a ton of points if any at all.  The only exception is USC, but they have 2 dynamic WRs, a solid RB and a good QB.

I had a late model Carr once.  But then I traded it in for a new one.

heh heh

in a "normal" Big Ten conference will be 9-3 on average.

This is pretty much what we observed during Carr's tenure, with a lot of great recruiting classes and talent.

I do believe Michigan will earn its share of 11-1 and 12-0 seasons in the future, but normally this is a pretty tough league.  Adding in Nebraska doesn't make matters easier. Ohio has a great coach and good recruiting, but even they won't get the "free lunch"  they enjoyed during the tail end of Carr's tenure and the Rodriguez era.  Those days of skating past Michigan are likely over. Even this November's game is not a slam dunk for the Buckeyes IMO.

I agree with the 8-4 scenario for 2012.

I love the "garbage time stats" above. I would be very interested to apply that model to Michigan teams in the late 1970s and 1980s, mainly because Bo was such a ruthless bastard about scoring touchdowns with his 3rd string tailback with less than 2:00 minutes to play.  Yeah, there was indeed time when it was "normal" for Michigan team to steamroll Stanford 51-0 or sandblast Wisconsin 42-0.

I thought I'd fix the chart.

I can't wait to show this to my GF, who endured me "raising my voice" about a DPotW as soon as I saw Dantonio wasn't faking. I knew there wouldn't be a dumber punt than this the whole weekend. She just rolled her pretty eyes and said, "MGoBlog..."

Man, these are just my favorite posts ever.

Mathlete, is there a way to contact you?  I have a quick question to ask you.

Thanks

After 2 years of reading MGoBlog it's time to comment - Mathlete is awesome!

Growing up in a family with a dad and uncles as football coaches, the debates would have been electric with these charts and insights. They were widely known for "crazy" tactics like not punting, using the spread in the early 80s and going for 2 all the time - simply because they charted outcomes and decided other coaches struggled with "irrational" opponents. Thus, I screamed at Lloyd during my AA days to ditch the conservative choices.

Go Blue.