Hoke besting Rodriguez by 118 points

Submitted by ClearEyesFullHart on November 2nd, 2011 at 10:30 AM

     Brian's latest weekly "Dressing Down of Borges" post, and I suppose the first 150 pages of "Three and Out" have got me to thinking.  Besides the obvious record differential, just how has Borges's "grab bag" offense fared compared to last year's? 

     Through 8 games, it comes down to...Borges losing.  283-278, 5 points.  To be fair to Borges, this assumes that Michigan wouldn't have scored in the fourth quarter against Western.  So yeah, with equal time Borges's offense would probably be beating Rodriguez's.

     Just for fun, I decided to look at the defenses through 8 games.  You come up with Hoke winning 117-240, a difference of 123 points.

     So yeah, that looks like a net difference of 118 points.  We can argue strength of schedule I suppose, but Umass, Bowling Green, and Indiana weren't exactly loaded either.  Age and experience caveats still apply.

    In conclusion, Hoke Uber Ales.  Cant wait to see that 2012 class suit up(or better yet-redshirt!)  Gotta love the direction of this program. 

Comments

Two Hearted Ale

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^

In fairness to Rodriguez, the 2011 team is nearly the same team as last year with a year of experience.  That's not to say expectations haven't been exceded, especially on defense, but any comparison is apples and oranges.

Section 1

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^

 

"Exponentially" better, as [Rodriguez] put it.  [Regarding expectations for the 2011 team.]

 

Then he was fired.

"We saw the light at the end of the tunnel," he said Tuesday in a 30-minute interview with The Associated Press. "Heck, we had 24 starters coming back, and the player of the year in the league—he's a sophomore and still learning. Recruiting, we thought it was going really well even with all the drama.

That's the frustrating part about it is we didn’t get a chance to finish the job." 

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/OK-now-they…

mbrummer

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^

is losing by more than that.  I remember at least 3 defensive TD's this year.

One of the biggest takeaways from the book for me is that the game cannot be boiled down to numbers much like baseball can.  It's too interconnected and with small sample sizes, minor plays can be a huge difference in numbers.  

The players and coaches believe in momentum in the book, which is something the numbers don't usually explain.  It exists if only if the players believe in it and thus is an factor even if the numbers don't bear it out.

MGlobules

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^

"Hold hard!" said I at this, 'tell your story as you ought, Senor Don Ojos Claros, for you know very well that all comparisons are odious, and there is no occasion to compare one person with another; the peerless Dulcinea del Tobos is what she is, and the lady Dona Delerma is what she is and has been, and that's enough.'

(Apologies to Cervantes.) 

P.S. Your title is deliberately provocative and may deserve the scorn that it invites. 

 

 

Baldbill

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^

Hear me now
Oh thou bleak and unbearable world,
Thou art base and debauched as can be;
And a knight with his banners all bravely unfurled
Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee!
I am I, Don Quixote,
The Lord of La Mancha, þ
My destiny calls and I go,
And the wild winds of fortune
Will carry me onward,
Oh whithersoever they blow.
Whithersoever they blow,
Onward to glory I go!
 

M-Dog

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^

Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth still?

Our main fear of the Hoke regime versus Rodriguez was that Borges = DeBord.  That did not happen, will not happen, plain and simple.  

Be at peace.  Take yes for an answer.

cigol

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^

This year, we are basically clock killing in the 4th quarter.  Last year, we'd be down 3 TDs against good teams and tied against crappy teams.  Either way, since our defense was so pathetic last year, we were gunning until the end.

ChiBlueBoy

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:55 AM ^

1) Defense is playing better this year. (My theory is 4-3 > 3-3-5 and technique)

2) It's impossible to know what would happen in an alternate universe with different coaches absent a time machine.

3) We have reason to be very proud of our players, and I don't think they're worried about what this season would be like under anyone else.

4) Flame wars suck. Stop please.

ChiBlueBoy

November 2nd, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^

If every offense ran primarily a spread, one could argue that the 3-3-5 would be superior because it gets lighter, faster players to the ball against smaller slot receivers, etc. In practice, I don't recall a 3-3-5 being successful in the B1G or a conference where offensive lines are large and there's a reliance on MANBALL. 3-3-5 also seems very good at getting better performance out of lesser talent, but not sure it brings out the best in large, athletic, talented defenders.

SysMark

November 2nd, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^

Won't even get into the specifics of this.  Just hoping you don't do statistical analysis for a living, at least not where someone's well-being may be at stake.

jaws4141

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^

If you care about being part of this blog I would be careful about what you say about RR.  You will be silenced and have blogging privileges taken away if you criticize RR.  What Brian and the rest of you RR lovers don't understand is that the spread offense is done.  I bet the next three BCS national champions will be teams that run a pro-style offense.  The spread is for teams that have inferior talent.  Auburn won the title because they had superman as QB.  Florida won two with a spread because they had superman at QB.   Both QB's won the Heisman.   RR will never win a national title with his offense. 

ChuckWood

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^

small talk on a slow day, what's wrong with that?  you people can be absurdly harsh at times.  I find the information provided, interesting.  Who cares which coach you prefer?  Facts were stated, he shouldn't be negged for that.