M Football Opinion Poll [UPDATED]

Submitted by Michigan Arrogance on November 28th, 2013 at 11:59 AM

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1oggXqnBAXJmDoyEa99ZF5JHtNia4rAVq1-K-bvti0f4/viewform

 

Here's a form of questions that developed in my mind over the last few days reading the board.

The format isn't perfect, but it's all I can do on Turkey Day.

For the 1st few questions, please note:

  • The divisions change to an E-W grouping beginning next year: M, OSU, PSU, MSU, Maryland, Rutgers in the east.
  • The 2014 CFB playoff begins next year: top 4 teams selected by committee, two semifinals played in bowl games, and a national championship game played in a different city each year. AFAIK, a conference title is NOT required.

 

For the last several questions:

  • By accountability, I mean: how much blame and/or credit to you assign for each of the 2011-2015 seasons (as a %)?
  • For a given year, please try to have your total add up to 100%.

 

Thanks in advance. I typically welcome constructive criticism, but please be advised in advance that:

  • I know it's not a scientific poll and I am not a psychometrician nor do I play one on TV
  • I'm probably not going to make any changes (typos or otherwise) b/c I don't have the time nor inclination to do so.
  • The board has been very toxic recently- I'm just asking for your input. If this generates discussion fine, but if you don't have something constructive to say, don't bother.

Thanks for your time and have a Happy Thanksgiving!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgilygbRO5CSdGhLa3ZpUEhGVmI3aUE5RE9GMzJzTGc&usp=sharing


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwilygbRO5CSYjREeFcwb3JOcU0/edit?usp=sharing

Edit: At a response count of 230, I played with some of the data: that's the .XLSX file (2nd link above). The graphs show histograms of each accountability in each of the 5 years 2011-2015: % of total responders VS accountability as a decimal. Basically, if the peaks are leftward, the coach was not held accountable. Peaks on the right indicate high accountability.

Most of the accountability (as you look from 2011-15) is what you'd expect, but the interesting thing (IMO) is how the RR & Transition (labelled as O, for other) accountabilities are fairly static from 2011 to 2012 and even for 2013 a bit. Clearly, after 2013 it's all on Hoke. Apparently people hold the previous coach consistently accountable for 2 years, then in year 3 an "accountability transition" takes place and by year 4 & beyond the overwhelming majoriety of people don't credit/blame the previous coach.

AFA the division, B10 title and playoff expectations: you can always look at the pie charts on the google response form - just submit a blank response and click 'view previous responses." Peolpe expect M to contend for the division every year or most years, win the division every other year (or most years!), win the B10 every 3-4 years and enter the playoff system every 4-5 years. Expectations are actually below what I expected, b/c thinking about this in the abstract is MUCH less emotional- since we haven't experienced the missed opportunities 1st hand, we seem to have more reasonable expectations. IMO, if M wins the B10 every 3-4 years that's a reasonable expectation, but I don't think most people will be all that pleased with that as an OUTCOME. Also, I kind of doubt we reach that title rate with OSU in the division, MSU performing well and PSU not bottoming out quite as much as expected.

People at this point are not confident that BH will reach their expectation levels: about 50% of people were basicailly 50-50 (maybes), UNLESS a change in offense is made. Again, you can see the Google results for this as well.

There are now 300 responses in the raw google forms spreadsheet- that's the 1st link. Feel free to create more eye-friendly charts and view the data as you wish. Thanks for the responses!

Comments

Blue in Yarmouth

November 28th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^

I think that was pretty well done IMHE. Interesting to see the final talley and judging from the comments over the past few days it is going to be pretty split. 

What I have to say is absolutely astonishing is that DB in his press release give Lloyd Carr a lot of credit for the 2011 season. Pretty much their entire development was under RR. When, though, did he ever place some of the blame for the 2008 season on LC? He gets credit for 2011 (something that occurred 4 years after his retirement) but no blame for 2008 (something that occurred a year after he retired)? DB is a class act.

Personally I don't care that he didn't give RR credit for 2011 in that venue, but he didn't have to give credit to anyone, he could have just left it alone. 

Anyway, I hope you come back and let us know what the results are. Thanks for the effort. 

LSAClassOf2000

November 28th, 2013 at 12:18 PM ^

That was actually an interesting way to get input on the subject and try to gauge where the board might feel the issues lie and on whose shoulders they sit. I would be interested in seeing some sort of summary of the results later. "The State Of Our Open Threads" was designed to capture the vitriol / passion of the fanbase, but this delves into perceived accountability and opinions on program benchmarks. This could be intriguing. 

Felix.M.Blue

November 28th, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^

Imposible to answer. So many neagtive things affected the last few years.

I agree with the DB / Carr comment. What an idiotic thing to say.

I understand why RR is held in a negative light but I can't for the life of me understand why Carr is so highly thought of.

PrincetonBlue

November 28th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^

I wish you used a bar graph, because I think those would be easier to read; and instead of percentages just use how many for each category.

That's a really small gripe, so no worries really.  Great work!

allintime23

November 28th, 2013 at 1:38 PM ^

I'm fine with moving forward with offensive changes. I like hoke and I really like Mattison. The offense has been dismal and the game planning has been a failure. Brady just needs to do what's right and address the issues needed to move forward.

Ben v2

November 28th, 2013 at 6:19 PM ^

DB's blog post regarding Lloyd and 2011 offers thinly disguised support for the following hypothesis:

Lloyd Carr and his backers still have an incredible and an inordinate amount of influence in the Michigan Athletic Department.  They want Lloyd to get credit, even when it is not due.

Good coaches are born networkers, any potential OC candidate can check with their associates, and realize that they will have to build relationships with Lloyd to have a chance to be successful here.

Good OC's establish a foundation of positive plays and take risks on top of that foundation.  They also make adjustments on which aspect of the foundation to emphasize when execution is at less 100%.

Some would argue that Michigan's history of hiring OC's under Lloyd was abysmal, and that Hoke's success during 2011 and 2012 occurred because Borges was forced to run a hybrid offense, not because of any real creativity or adjustments.  While the 2013 offense was poor, imagine Michigan running the zone stretch with the current team.

This history gives some serious pause as to whether the current regime can ever hire an effective OC.

In that scenario, I would rather see Borges as opposed to Debord or other ex-Lloyd Carr associates being the OC.

rob f

November 28th, 2013 at 7:31 PM ^

especially considering that you apparently threw it together so quickly.

I answered the survey under the assumption that for each season the sum total of accountability including "transition " is 100%. Only change I would make would be a clarification of that in the instructions.

Still, though, an interesting survey.

c1s2m0466

November 28th, 2013 at 10:50 PM ^

Recruiting issue for The Wolverine from the 2013 class. Michigan will be fine. This past class will be a good one. Interesting that Hoke only had 8 scholarship offensive linemen on the roster when he was hired. No wonder the line is terrible.

flashOverride

November 29th, 2013 at 8:41 AM ^

I know this will annoy some posters here, but, it's what I believe: I still attach what may seem like an inordinate amount of blame to Lloyd Carr for the state of the program, because I feel everything is the result of a chain reaction. Lloyd's lackluster performance over the second half of his tenure really hurt perceptions of the program. Tressel's ownership of him, not just on the field but in player development (compare recruiting class rankings for the two coaches, then compare how many NFL draft picks they each produced) affected recruiting. His last few classes didn't set up his successor well. And of course the successor had to come from outside the program because over 13 seasons, he couldn't hire or groom one decent guy who could take the reins from him. Then he stayed way past his shelf life and poorly timed his retirement announcement.

I think the hiring of Rich Rod can even be partly pinned on him: what were the two things Michigan fans were most sick of (besides Jim Tressel) by 2007? To me, it was Lloyd's predictable offense and the frequent inability of his defenses to adjust when they themselves came up against spread offenses. I think the whole "going outside the box" with the Rich Rod hire was in part a reaction to Lloyd's ineptitude in those areas. And of course, I don't think he did much to help the chilly reception RR received from the "blue bloods".

So, then what happens? The pendulum swings back. After the firing of RR, opinion is that they need to run back to "safe and familiar", and we get another "reaction" hire in Brady Hoke. Michigan has been "reacting" instead of forging its own path and identity for the better part of a decade, and eclipsed by MSU and flat-out left in the dust by OSU are the results of it. And I believe it began with one Lloyd Carr. I really do think he was a good man and decent coach at first, but he lost the fire in his belly circa 2001, and apparently didn't see that as a reason to hang 'em up until six years had passed and damage had been done to the program that can't just be undone overnight.