Alabama vs. Michigan 2012– Pt. 3 - A Geographic Analysis

Submitted by TESOE on

image_thumb

So far I’ve done two of these diaries looking at only the public rosters as posted by each school, free Rivals data and blogger based depth charts.  Pt1 looking at height/weight and Rivals rating by position.  Pt 2 looking at redshirting numbers.  In this diary I’m mainly breaking down the recruiting classes by where they come from and how far they travel to come to the respective schools. A quick review and I will get on with that…

The Tide is bigger in girth and number, more Rivally, redshirty and about as elderly class wise.  Their OTs are humongous. Our DEs are lithe and hopefully hard to lay hands on.  Can we out play their strengths?  Certainly we can.  I’m interested in fall camp.  The onus is on Michigan to execute and develop where expected and also early where otherwise RSing would be a good idea.

It’s frustrating given the early entry and success of Bama that they are so well off personnel-wise.  Saban recruits moves and manages rosters differently and/or repugnantly in my estimation.  I want to get into that but it’s just not the data or the focus of what I am doing here.  It’s worthy of a diary but it’s been done before.

OK… on to the data smash that I have…

Where these guys come from isn’t really as important as what kind of players they are.  But it’s interesting and speaks to who these guys are as well as where in the CFB world both schools are.  Enough “ares” let’s get on with this.

A variability chart of distance to campus compared team to team…excluding the walk-ons that are not on the 2-deep...that would be Kovacs (Alabama does not have any walk-ons in the 1s or 2s except kickers and long snappers.)

image

Note to self - kids like to go to school near home in general. I would be interested to roll this up for all of College football. Especially in light or recent success by USC despite just deserved penalties.  I take that challenge but have limitations in time.

(EDIT: Zone Left points to an article by Andy Staples in the comments that has 2004-2008 data for Div 1 schools.  I rolled that up in the comments.  This was a good link.)

Michigan is more spread out and and in a Florida sense – bi-modal.  I highlighted the guys in the 2 deep above (they are slightly larger dots above…this shows up better in the distribution charts below where the two deep guys are darker.

image

The differences here are not so great for the most part.  The distributions are the same in character but Michigan is clearly more spread out than Alabama in it’s recruiting territory.  The red brackets below the box plots are the shortest interval that contains half the data.  I think it’s interesting that despite being more spread out Michigan has a large contingent of close to home guys.  This is due to our proximity to Detroit I’m sure, but Bama is close to Birmingham – not Detroit but biggish. 

Overall CFB is a local sport which probably goes a long way in explaining it’s popularity.  It’s just another trait that makes this sport great.  Neither team here is recruiting on the national scale of USC or forward slash “S” Sparty .   

Here’s a US map with push pins of the known scholarship guys who signed LOIs plus Kovacs.  With a few exceptions (notably and significantly Florida) it’s a north south battle royale.

image

Here’s a breakdown of guys on the roster by class to see Alabama’s trends given their National Championship runs and Michigan’s distribution given our recent coaching change.

image

Michigan shows Pahokee nights and Detroit days, while there is only a small signal with Alabama of a wider recruiting stamp given the recent success.  

Here’s the same chart with all the crucible of recruited athletes that made up the current team.

image

Comparing these two charts says to me Alabama did not haul in out of town talent who have since left.  This is a similar team in a geographic sense to the crucible of players that has made them.

If anything these charts showcase the regional expertise and interest of the coaching staff as well as the inherent location of the schools in general.  Alabama won their NCs with largely southern talent (with notable exceptions like Ingram) and will be an almost exclusive southern team come September.  Hoke as well is getting it done with more local kids.  Most of his guys from the west coast are kids he had a relationship with at SDSU. 

Michigan is a tale of two coaches with respect to recruiting… here’s a chart showing within class adjusted for redshirts.

image

Here’s the 1000+ mile club for Michigan’s upperclassmen…RR guys.

Brandin Hawthorne
Brendan Gibbons
Craig Roh
Denard Robinson
Drew Dileo
Jeremy Gallon
Marvin Robinson
Mike Jones
Ricky Barnum
Stephen Hopkins
Taylor Lewan
Vincent Smith

Here’s the 1000+ guys from the lowerclassmen…Hoke guys except for Ash.

Erik Magnuson
Matt Wile
Richard Ash
Russell Bellomy
Sione Houma

Here’s the same distance to campus data with respect to position…

image

Our TEs are home grown but otherwise we range fairly evenly across all positions (except kickers thanks to Wile and Gibbons.)  Bama is fairly constant as well by positions and relatively more local.  Here’s the same data for the walk ons.

image

It surprised me that their walk-ons would be even slightly more traveled than Mich.  I don’t think that is significant though.  More interesting is the fact that they have LB walkons and we don’t.  I thought about that and decided to look at walk-ons by position to gauge their fit vs. team need.

This analysis by class includes current walk-ons which as I learned in doing these diaries can screw up your data when you are too lazy to go back and research who those guys are/were.  This is kind of where I left that off in the other diary. 

Alabama’s walk-ons are evenly spread by position (if you breakout DBs and safeties together.)  Michigan’s walk-on class complements the holes in the team roster.  I’m going to be interested in seeing if any special teamers are walk-on guys for Bama.  Here’s a distribution chart showing the breakdown of each team by position with the walk-ons highlighted. 

image

Talking about walk-ons is a signal of the differences here in teams.  The Tide doesn’t need any walk-on help.  Mich does or at most will need Frosh to play.  There are perhaps reasons Bama has more walk-ons on the spring roster (it can pay to have played for the Tide in the long run for the sake of your heirs – I doubt we will see a Sons of Saban scholarship fund – who knows) but as we saw in Pt2 they had a large contingent of EEs show up and a couple significant JUCOs to make up for NFL and normal attrition.  The non EEs will show up in the fall and squash the Tides walk-ons when they cut to 105.  Michigan doesn't have that issue as seen in Pt 1.

This is about as much as you can tell from looking at the rosters. The sub-plots that underlie these bullets are discussion worthy but I do have a bunch of more odd/interesting takes from the Rivals/Roster mash.

Here’s the number of videos posted on Rivals per Star.

image

I posted the summary analysis just because this is so off the wall.  What I was looking at was if the southern talent was treated differently by Rivals.  This shows a similar treatment if just in the number of videos posted per star.

HUGEtractsofland asked for a speed breakdown in Pt1.  Rivals data for 40 times is sparse but I pulled it and showed it.  Here it is again by position. 

image

Here it is by roster…again this is sparse and fakey… just showing the available data in chart form.  We all know how fast the SEC is (/s).

image

The breakdown does show a faster OL for Mich.  Again this is ridiculous stuff but I do think we have a good OL that is going to get undersold to Bamas NFL like talent.

Here’s BMI vs speed for both teams…

image

You get the idea… Lewan and Schofield are Oregonesque in their proportion but perhaps they are more light of feet than the Tide’s OTs.

D. J. Fluker Runningback Jalston Fowler #45 of the Alabama Crimson Tide follows the block of lineman D. J. Fluker #76 during the fourth quarter past safety Luke Wollet #39 of the Kent State Golden Flashes on September 3, 2011 at Bryant Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.  Alabama defeated Kent State 48-7.    vs.  

76 or 77 – which do you think will go higher in the draft?

Enough said about rosters.  Ultimately this series of diaries shows that September can’t come soon enough.

Comments

Zone Left

July 12th, 2012 at 8:33 PM ^

There was a paper published in the Journal of Sports Economics in 2008 that showed BCS level players' top factor in recruiting was proximity to campus. Factors like previous ranking and academic standing were much less important.

Andy Staples discusses that here. He also points out that the of the BCS programs that won over forty games from 2004-2008, 16 of the 22 had over 50% of their rosters come from within the school's home state or 200 miles of campus.

Also, Lewan and Fluker are awesome, but I really think Lewan is a better left tackle and thus, a better draft prospect. Lewan moves so well for a guy his size.

TESOE

July 13th, 2012 at 1:42 PM ^

Here is the subset of that data without wins (for which I don't see a correlation.)

Michigan is more local now comparably

Alabama less - though still more than Michigan

Caveats-

  • This is from 2004-2008.
  • These are Andy Staples' numbers - ZLs link is worthy of clicking through...
School Avg. Distance
Stanford University 1344.00793
Oregon State University 929.730224
University of Colorado 888.996842
University of Oregon 842.746667
University of Nebraska 767.022937
Washington State University 715.989333
University of Arizona 678.945739
Kansas State University 675.969429
Duke University 663.27625
University of Washington 661.407273
Iowa State University 648.736045
University of Notre Dame 640.809307
University of Minnesota 600.973445
Boston College 568.338614
University of Kansas 561.643217
University of Michigan 547.289907
University of California-Berkeley 532.620841
Purdue University 508.190342
Northwestern University 508.063371
West Virginia University 506.744762
University of Miami 499.007589
Arizona State University 498.599914
University of Southern California 486.1046
University of Louisville 480.432477
University of Connecticut 479.937581
University of Tennessee 464.756435
University of Kentucky 458.271231
University of Iowa 456.225
University of Wisconsin 453.709407
Texas Tech University 449.523814
University of Missouri 443.270684
Michigan State University 402.678833
Oklahoma State University 386.171345
University of Oklahoma 385.910893
University of Illinois 379.573051
Rutgers University 365.543909
North Carolina State University 361.212
University of Florida 359.728291
University of Mississippi 359.638702
Wake Forest University 357.356957
Syracuse University 351.669068
Vanderbilt University 349.564039
Indiana University 318.386944
University of Pittsburgh 314.569035
The Ohio State University 314.344316
University of Arkansas 313.929695
Florida State University 308.5392
University of North Carolina 301.803333
University of Cincinnati 294.642359
University of California-Los Angeles 293.983168
Georgia Institute of Technology 281.466598
Auburn University 263.991069
Louisiana State University 259.315304
University of South Carolina 258.028504
Texas A&M University 246.922773
Clemson University 244.383839
Penn State University 242.878039
University of Virginia 236.020874
Mississippi State University 231.789291
University of Maryland 223.647905
Virginia Polytechnic Institute 222.513362
University of Alabama 211.49397
University of Georgia 206.874953
University of Texas 191.406893
Baylor University 186.400536
University of South Florida 160.171849

By wins from that table...

 

Proximity to recruiting hotbeds is the most significant take home I'm seeing here.  West coast teams are reaching east, southern and midwestern teams are staying home.

 

Demographic changes favor southern teams if proximity remains king.  This article on ESPN by Paula Lavigne talks a bit about that.  Ohio is stil a hot bed regardless.  I'm not sure how seriously I take that though.  Football is changing pretty fast with recruits getting contacted earlier and with data being available at the touch of a mouse.

USC is certainly pulling from across the country as does Oregon (though I haven't looked at that closely.)  In defense of Hoke he's just missed on long distance guys up to this point.  

I strongly feel the largest factor for success in CFB is player/team dedication and good coaching.      When Zettel went to PSU because he felt it would give him a better path to the league that was disheartening (I'm sure there was more to it than just that.)  I think more of the top notch guys southern or not are going to start looking at coaches and facilities farther from home.

Fluker plays and projects to RT IIRC but both OTs are NFLers for the Tide this year.  And I think Lewan is better than either one.

Wolfman

July 14th, 2012 at 5:37 PM ^

I'm referring to the sentence immediately below:

"I strongly feel the largest factor for success in CFB is player/team dedication and good coaching." These are, indeed, the logical factors one would jump to is assessing the haves from the have-nots of cfb.  However, I feel at this point in the ever changing world of cfb, the largest factor for success is that one league operates at a completely different level than do all others.

Because the NCAA cannot, or will not,-really don't know which of these two are correct, the SEC by and large routinely and blatantly ignore the oversigning guidelines as established by this governing body and is non ambiguous in its reading. However, the SEC continues to ignore this policy and routinely offers scholarships to every good prospect within that area of the country.  Because football is the focus of the SEC, instead of a reasonable mix of academics and sports, something most leagues attempt to bring about, this has caused an ever widening gap between the SEC and the rest of the cfb world.

Hell, scholarships are offered without thought to high school academic achievement with the mindset that obviously a large number of great talents will not step inside an institution of higher learning, but by offering so many, we will only have to occasionaly rescinding the offer we made to a certain kid - strictly business in that part of the country - because "Damnit, YA'All, we had two more than planned on qualifying this year.

This has cause the SEC to turn into the equivalent of a Triple A farm team, loaded with great coaching, preparing these young men for their eventual trip to the bigs. This hasn't ruled out the occasional school tht slips in from the Double A leagues such as the BIG and XII, but I think its existence far outweighs the factor you listed in your tremendously well researched and great presentation. 

Your most recent addition to this site obviously is a result of a tremendous amount of thought, research,and most importantly, time.  Greeat job.

TESOE

July 15th, 2012 at 11:19 AM ^

 

Thanks Wolfman...Let's not forget that it is incumbent on any champion to prove it's caliber every year.  If the SEC is better then they need to prove that on the field.  It's possible they aren't this year.  A well-coached enthusiastic team beats a poorly coached and/or sloppy team every time.  I don't want to start a battle but if we didn't square Denard to our round offense, I'd peg Michigan in this game by a touchdown or more.  But that is water long under the bridge.

Talking to an SEC fan or advocate about over signing is like talking to a Barclay’s executive about gaming the LIBOR.  They just don't get it.  They think they are doing these kids a service.  The ones who succeed are being served.  The marginal ones are not.  McNutt over signed quite a few guys but those teams aren't the stuff of legend.  

I pulled the attrition rates and walk-on numbers for the B1G, SEC, Pac12 and Big12 to look at personnel management.  I have a diary in mind there but it's fraught with more categorical issues than the positional analysis here.  The problem is the data isn't privy to the choices made by these athletes, coaches or the academic institutions.  Most all of the issues have been brought up before in other posts or articles.  In the end it is probably too much work for too little gain.

Over signing is not as large an issue now that the SEC rolled back their allowed signees to 28 in 2009, but over signing is still an issue if you have 18 to give and then sign 23.  Telling who has what to give is not easy when you don't follow the team like you do your own.  Alabama is still benefiting in granted redshirts, grayshirts and deferred athletes who have comeback as JUCOs.  Several blogs and media-ites have deconstructed that class individually.  The effect of all the large classes together 2008 to 2012 has produced the balance that is Alabama 2012.  Michigan suffered a few lackluster classes but has otherwise signed just about as many kids on the good years.

The biggest difference in the rosters is in the JUCO policy.  Michigan would do well to establish a transferable kinesthesiology curriculum at Grand Rapids CC.  I looked at that awhile back and I don't think there is a possible path for an athlete to follow there to get into Michigan.  If we are going to take a JUCO he pretty much has to figure out his path on his own evidently.  Certainly Michigan is not signing guys and "placing" them which is standard practice in the SEC (I think Nebraska has done this as well.)

The opportunities at other top 40 programs will become more apparent as the information that the recruits have going into the process becomes more apparent to the recruits and their families.  Opportunity, coaching and facilities will make the difference to these athletes in the long run IMO.

cm2010

July 17th, 2012 at 6:57 PM ^

Is that since most kids stay close to home, southern schools are forced to take more chances on academic liabilities because their public schools aren't as great. Personally, I think giving these kids a chance is pretty cool. I'm not excusing over signing, just that based on their recruiting area, they will have more attrition.

BlueDragon

July 12th, 2012 at 10:53 PM ^

Tremendous diary. A good data dump is a feast on the eyes. Then you started breaking it down by class adjusted for redshirt and it went up to 11. It felt like reading published scientific literature.

Keep up the great work!

CoachBP623

July 15th, 2012 at 1:33 AM ^

Being an offensive minded coach it's so easy to see why Bama is so difficult to beat. The offensive and defensive line of the tide are big, physical, and technically sound. The tide prefer a thick tailback with a change of pace guy to occasionally get reps or a third down here and there. The offensive play calling appears to be safe, modest, and boring. In reality it's genius and works like an aesthetic. The goal is to wear you down, and strike when least expected or when they smell blood in the water (after a turnover or great starting field position). To be successful against this smash mouth, pro style offense you must do three things well. First and foremost you have to win first down. So many times Bama is in 2nd and 6 or less which is a comfort zone for any offensive coordinator. Putting the tide in 2nd and 8 or more greatly improves the chances of limiting them offensively. The second thing that has to happen to shut down the tides offense is stopping the run without committing too many men to the box. A lot of teams that played Bama this year got gashed by the run so they would turn to 9-10 men in the box which opened up the passing game and play action. The third thing that is imperative to stopping the tides offense is open field tackling. The physical nature in which Bama plays usually racks up a lot of yards after initial contact. By making the initial tackle you can take away many yards that Alabama depends on. Doing those three things well and consistently will keep Bama's offensive production lower then usual.

We all know that the Tides defense is the bread and butter. So physical, so well coached, and so strong up front, it's no wonder why they can plug in anyone at qb and play for titles year in and out. Watching them on film is crazy. It's the closest thing to an nfl defense that we see in the NCAA. Four things that can lead to success against the Bama defense are as follows. Win first down. Always be in 2nd & 7 or less to keep the playbook completely open. Another thing you can do is to be unpredictable on first down. Run from the gun, pass from under center, screen plays, play action, and even a draw or two will help offensively. So many times teams are so worried about being in 3rd&long against Bama that they are very predictable in first down play calls. The third thing necessary for success is to stay out of the vaunted 3rd&long that I just spoke of. Sooner or later a 3rd&long becomes a turnover or a huge edge in field position. The last two things necessary for success are to control the time of possession, and get the ball to the playmakers in space.

Looking at how we stack up against Bama I think it's fair to say that we have an offense that can get our athletes in space. I also think that our speed at quarterback gives us a dimension that Bama is not used to. My biggest concern is our defensive line. The size and physicality of their offensive line will be a problem with our lack of quality depth. It's imperative to win the special teams battle, which I think we will. The best thing about this game is its the first one. Michigan will have some wrinkles that Bama isn't ready for and Bama will most assuredly be the same for the most part. They are who they are and they're not going to change it. If we can stop the run and force them to pass 25+ times I think that bodes well for us with our speed at DE. I think we have a real shot with this one. If Denard completes 60% I think we come out of the jerry done 27-24 victors. If Denard struggles then Bama will dictate things in a 24-13 win. Either way it's nice to play the best because if you want to be the best you have to beat them.