The father was an outstanding athlete, all-state in football and basketball, 6'3, fast, and solid, definite Big Ten safety prospect. His knee problems led him to go the basketball route at CMU. In that era Michigan football was about the only thing going sports-wise in Michigan, wouldn't surprise me if the father still has some fondness for U-M going back over the past decades. His comments, to me, seemed like hints that his son would be really interested if offered. I'm sure the coaches are well aware of this. Beilein did go down to Texas to see him play in late January, that started the first flurry of articles.
I don't think MSU will beat them in South Bend. And while there are games after MSU that they "could" lose, the toughest two are USC at home and Stanford on the road. So it may be up to Michigan to save the world from an October full of ND hype.
Both teams return a lot of talent, the game is at home. The last two games could have gone either way. The only real difference is familiarity with a system (1st vs 2nd year), which leads to the "slight underdog" comment, but I think that's sometimes overblown. I was in South Bend 25 years ago for Holtz's debut and his new system looked pretty good (no punts), in part because his offense wasn't what one would have expected based on his Arkansas/Minnesota game films. Michigan will be able to do something similar in prepping for this one.
Because the belief is that a coach deserves both public and private, behind the scenes support, especially from those with ties to the program. Failing getting private support, at least people shouldn't be creating problems.
Edwards' comments, while public, symbolize the fact that Rodriguez didn't have private support. His behavior with the JT Floyd/#1 jersey issue, which could easily have been handled privately, is further evidence of this lack of support. He went public, created a PR problem, instead of dealing with it privately -- and fully resolving the issue that way.
Your Obi Ezeh example is disingenuous. Edwards' job isn't evaluating coaches/players in public. Brian's is. I wasn't happy when U-M hired Brian Ellerbe and was glad when he was fired, but if you told me, circa 2000, that Glen Rice was running around privately bad-mouthing U-M I wouldn't be pleased. If Rice came out in public ripping on the guy, while he was there, or after he was fired, I think people would wonder why he wasn't being supportive or at least staying quiet rather than allowing his comments to be used to undermine the program.
But Brandy has some major logistical issues with flying to Lions games anyway, squeezing in a Saturday night taping as well wasn't his cup of tea. Though listening to him groggy reacting to another Lions turnover was entertaining.
I think the way to read any Brandon interviews (at least the football parts) is to read it three times: Read it under the assumption that he's decided to jettison Rodriguez, read it under the assumption that he's decided to keep him, then read it under the assumption that he's not sure. I think, if anything, that his statements about "selling Michigan" to recruits, not coaches, don't bode well for Rich (for the record, I'm more pro-Rodriguez than anti).
It doesn't take into account initial field position--and doesn't also account for lousy FG kicking, which is not the offense's fault. That's why the advanced metrics, which take into account likelihood of scoring given starting position, are even more relevant.
For baseball geeks, we've gone from RBIs to Bill James' runs created to PECOTA and other complex metrics. The main reason for choosing the least favorable, less sophisticated metric is to advance a position not supported by more developed metrics. I understand why Brian finds that less than useful.
Michigan has a lot of banged up players, in particular Denard. I suspect the bowl game will feature the offense's best performance of the season. Now maybe that won't be enough to outscore the opposition, but I'm actually looking forward to the bowl game.
BTW, without Andrew Luck where would Jim Harbaugh be likely to coach next year?
Field position matters when your team has a reasonable chance of stopping a drive. Field position matters a lot less when you're not stopping the other team. This is especially true when you're down 2 or more scores -- you need possessions and an onside kick, especially a surprise one, is a great way to get those possessions.
The best satire takes reality and twists it just a little bit to create absurdity. That's why this is so perfectly done, it reads like a typical Rosenberg piece with all the snarky asides.
Telander played DB at Northwestern for Alex Agase. 20 years later he wrote a book that was very critical of college football, "The 100 Yard Lie". In the book he attacked Agase for, among other grave sins, telling Telander he needed a haircut.
Bo Schembechler was close to Agase and was asked about the book. The questioner asked whether it had more credibility because Telander been a college football player. Bo said (paraphrasing) "I don't know how much of a player he was, I can't remember designing too many plays to go away from him".
I don't think it's because of his talent as much as because of the "outside" reaction to his signing. A lot of U-M fans feel defensive of him because they think he got a raw deal from the press in February. I think that's the main difference with Witty -- Witty certainly filled a need himself and was missed last year, so I'm not sure that's a good comaparison.
Are we more concerned about Dorsey because he's a great athlete than we would be if he was a great violinaist? Sure. That's why we're on this site rather than MGoOrchestra.
I can comment on being an unnamed source for journalists. Generally speaking, as noted above, the unnamed source is useful to the reporter in pointing him/her to the actual story.
The source also can give background and context as well as the scoop -- and that information helps the reporter be fully educated on the matter before seeking on the record comments from the target of the story.
The whistleblower unnamed source is far less common than the "informed party who knows where the bodies are buried" type of unnamed source. Whistleblower information really has to be vetted thoroughly because it may be false, may be incorrect, or may represent a misunderstanding (such as players who, like Rosenberg/Snyder, didn't understand the countable/non-countable rule).
In contrast the "hey, you might want to talk to John Doe about that sewage contract, there's something fishy there" information doesn't need as much vetting -- the reporter just calls John Doe. Rosenberg and friends relied on the supposed whistleblowers, but it's clear that they did so in a very haphazard, sloppy manner. Not that they or the Free Press will ever admit that.
He's the Freep's editor/publisher. It was clear to me after three times back and forth that he was being totally disingenuous. If the editor/publisher of a paper is going to throw out weak red herrings instead of making an actual defense of a major story, that casts doubt on everything his paper does.
There's a very good chance that the D-line will be better in 2010 than it was in 2009, even with the loss of Graham. That may well be the point that Van Bergen was making.
(and I certainly partook), a Courtney type player would have made this team a lot better this year.
I've seen Jon Horford play, he's no Al, but Al wasn't always dominant either, just extremely athletic. The one thing I've noticed about Jon is that he has great hands, he catches the ball well, doesn't waste motion after getting it, and goes up with his shot. He'd be a very useful addition to this team.
It was Lowell's performance in the 2002 state championship game (where they tore apart Brother Rice) that really brought the spread to Michigan HS football. Other schools were running it a lot too, but Lowell's version with Mark Catlin was devastating. So it became the offense de jour, supplanting the wing-T. A couple years later they got Keith Nichol at quarterback and it became even better.
They're a system program, and their guys learn the system from an early age, so they're going to be tough to beat. And they've got some major speed. No, they won't have anyone nearly as fast as Gardner, but I doubt he breaks any long TD runs (30 yard runs, yes, not breakaways).
No, I have no ties with anyone near Lowell, just have seen them play more than a few times over the years. They will be Inkster's toughest opponent to date, by far.
But it appears that David Brandon is campaigning for the job and that he has support among the Regents. Since everyone in the know says Brandon did the dirty work for his good friend Lloyd in campaigning against Miles two years ago, I don't see him changing his mind about Miles as AD.
Brandon was making a lot of phone calls to donors and Regents in late 2007 and U-M's behind the scenes interest in Les Miles seemed to go downhill at about the same time. That's the sort of manipulator with a hidden agenda we don't need.
Mouton punching someone with a helmet on is a bit different from sucker-punching and grievously injuring a bystander.
What Mouton did vs ND is akin to what Winston did at Wisconsin. Funny how Winston seems to get into such scrapes on and off the field.
What Winston did to Sturges is akin to what Mike Milano did a couple weeks earlier. If Mike Milano was reinstated to U-M's team and blew out his knee and people here were disappointed about the injury, you'd have a point.
Of course Milano was never reinstated. And if he had been, you can be sure Michael Rosenberg would have written another "Rodriguez trying to win at all costs" column.
We're still waiting for Rosenberg's column on Winston's reinstatement.
If Iowa bombs Michigan like that, then you can kiss the Spartans' Big Ten hopes goodbye, because there's no way MSU will compete with the Hawkeyes either.
Maxwell's written two diaries so far for the MSU website. Both also appeared in his hometown Midland Daily News. The first one included the reference to 14-hour days. It has disappeared from the Midland Daily News website, while the second diary is still available online (http://www.ourmidland.com/articles/2009/08/25/sports/2045800.txt).
So MSU not only scrubbed the article from their own website; they also got a newspaper to scrub it from its website.
Sturges wasn't a party to the first fight. He was an innocent bystander when Winston showed up. Conroy was the one in the first fight. You know, the sweet young man who made one bad decision in that game at Yost.
Making one bad decision and getting into trouble seems to be a pattern at MSU these days.
Chuck Manson's problem was that he made two bad decisions. We can all agree that the LaBianca murders compounded his legal problems considerably. If he'd just stuck to the Tate murders, then he could have gotten off the hook for just making one bad decision.
As for a reason for a second chance, I think the headline over Rosenberg's column the other day says it all. You know, win at all costs. As a wise man once said, maybe Dantonio should check himself.
He's such a victim. I can't believe he was forced to spend four months in jail for just one bad decision. That's so unfair. Sturges is the one who caused this anyway. If he hadn't been there, Winston would have just been punching air. And if Sturges had had better balance, he wouldn't have hurt his skull.
So it's really Sturges' fault. He should be jailed for assault, after all he struck Winston's fist with his face.
Threet decided that his future at U-M was limited and decided to go elsewhere. He didn't mouth off, he didn't trash the program, he didn't blast Rodriguez, he didn't say a bunch of stuff to other players that is now being leaked by insiders.
He just left quietly for what he thinks will be a better opportunity. I'm fine with that.
If he is stuck holding a clipboard the next three years it's not going to be a source of joy for me. If he does well I'll be happy for him.
I would hope that other U-M fans would feel similarly.
Personally, I save my ire or mockery for someone who transfers to an archrival and rips the program publicly. There's a world of difference between Threet and Boren.
Wally used to tell stories in the "pre-game" portion of Ufer's broadcast. I missed one doozy of one, all I remember is that the following week Ufer had to read a statement on the air apologizing to anyone who was offended by Weber's story.
Webb made it clear on the radio that it wasn't a new "off the board" guy. If you look at the ones still on the board, Stokes is the only one whose likelihood of signing with U-M had faded.
It will be a lot more difficult for MSU fans to rant about Jalen Rose squatting over the "S" 16 years ago.
Various RCMB nutjobs have ranted about the Rose incident for years, as it was further proof of the evil of U-M athletes in particular and everyone associated with U-M as a whole.
That was, of course, ridiculous. Similarly, these two worthless thugs don't represent MSU athletes or fans. The two players would represent any MSU fan stupid enough to defend their actions.
It will be interesting to see how the spin on this develops over the coming days, not from the vast majority of MSU fans who are fine upstanding people, but on the lunatic fringe that populates some of the message boards.
Heater was DC for Earle Bruce at CSU in 1991-92 (whereupon Earle got fired for going Woody on his own players). And Heater's sitting next to Dave Brown in the Afro-tastic photo, Franklin's #9 a bit further over.
I went to the stats archive and looked at the negative rushing yardage for the quarterbacks.
Granted, that includes lost yardage by QBs in 2008 on running plays, not just sacks. And it doesn't take into account scrambles for positive yards.
Anyway: 2008: 207 lost yards for Sheridan and Threet
2007: 236 lost yards for Henne and Mallett
2006: 171 lost yards for Henne
2005: 119 lost yards for Henne
2004: 198 lost yards for Henne
2003: 179 lost yards for Navarre
2002: 122 lost yards for Navarre
2001: 188 lost yards for Navarre
Given all that, I don't think it's a major factor in the numbers. You're talking 400+ attempts per season and the lost yardage from sacks seems to center in the 150-200 range, so it's a variance of just over 0.1 yards per attempt.
Brian already noted that the goal posts are wider.
In high school teams kick off from the 40, not the 35 or 30 (higher tee too IIRC). Also, any kick that crosses the goal line is an automatic touchback. Both those factors have to be taken into account.
Those who saw Gingell kick for Detroit Catholic Central probably can recall him booting a kickoff through the goal posts at the Silverdome. I figured he'd be the kickoff guy from 2004-2007, but he redshirted then took time to build up to that role.
I have average per pass attempt data (granted, without sacks) going back quite a few years for U-M.
I really don't see any indication that a bad performance in a given year indicates some collapse of the program. Granted they've only had a negative number a handful of times: 1971, 1973, 1984 (the worst before now, -0.65), 2001, and 2002.
The correlation between the numbers in successive years is basically zero. The numbers are a good measure of a team's offense and defense in a given year, because yards per attempt are a very good measure of a team's passing offense (and defense).
U-M's worst year in this stat was 1984. 1985 was their third best year and 1986 was their best year. We know why that was -- because Harbaugh was healthy for all of 1985 and 1986 and the defense improved greatly after 1984 as well.
What I'm saying is that the numbers are revealing, but they are an effect, not a cause, and not a trend.
Time of possession is an effect, not a cause. Each team had roughly the same number of possessions, as they do in every game.
Michigan had two one-play TD drives and a punt return for a TD. They had a 14-7 lead with 5:42 left in the first with Purdue having had three full possessions and Michigan having run one offensive play. That greatly skewed the TOP stat, giving Purdue a 9-minute advantage at a time when Michigan had a 7-point lead.
The issue wasn't time of possession; it was Michigan's inability to stop long Purdue drives, which resulted in two things: more points and more TOP. The former is far more important.
. . . is why is a respectable journalist like Rosenberg now channeling Rob Parker?
Total speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that, while doing his Bo/Woody book, Rosenberg spent a lot of time around players from that era--many of whom presumably were pro-Miles. That's better than hanging around people who were pro-DeBord, I guess. Rosenberg's writings on Rodriguez read like writings from someone who's been living in a cocoon of anti-RichRod groupthink for the past few months.
I've always felt that red zone scoring should be evaluated based on average points per red zone possession. For simplicity's sake, I'd just award 7 points for a TD and of course 3 for a FG.
Oklahoma would thus be 17*7 = 119 + 3 = 122 in 18 red zone possessions, or 6.8 points per possession, which is astounding. I'm guessing 5 is a more typical average.
Recent Comments
The father was an outstanding athlete, all-state in football and basketball, 6'3, fast, and solid, definite Big Ten safety prospect. His knee problems led him to go the basketball route at CMU. In that era Michigan football was about the only thing going sports-wise in Michigan, wouldn't surprise me if the father still has some fondness for U-M going back over the past decades. His comments, to me, seemed like hints that his son would be really interested if offered. I'm sure the coaches are well aware of this. Beilein did go down to Texas to see him play in late January, that started the first flurry of articles.
I don't think MSU will beat them in South Bend. And while there are games after MSU that they "could" lose, the toughest two are USC at home and Stanford on the road. So it may be up to Michigan to save the world from an October full of ND hype.
Both teams return a lot of talent, the game is at home. The last two games could have gone either way. The only real difference is familiarity with a system (1st vs 2nd year), which leads to the "slight underdog" comment, but I think that's sometimes overblown. I was in South Bend 25 years ago for Holtz's debut and his new system looked pretty good (no punts), in part because his offense wasn't what one would have expected based on his Arkansas/Minnesota game films. Michigan will be able to do something similar in prepping for this one.
HSSports.net has Rockford on the road for Lowell (week 1), Muskegon (week 5), Grandville (week 7), and Jenison (week 9).
He was part of a great one-two punch in the mid-80's (think the other guy went to Wisconsin).
Because the belief is that a coach deserves both public and private, behind the scenes support, especially from those with ties to the program. Failing getting private support, at least people shouldn't be creating problems.
Edwards' comments, while public, symbolize the fact that Rodriguez didn't have private support. His behavior with the JT Floyd/#1 jersey issue, which could easily have been handled privately, is further evidence of this lack of support. He went public, created a PR problem, instead of dealing with it privately -- and fully resolving the issue that way.
Your Obi Ezeh example is disingenuous. Edwards' job isn't evaluating coaches/players in public. Brian's is. I wasn't happy when U-M hired Brian Ellerbe and was glad when he was fired, but if you told me, circa 2000, that Glen Rice was running around privately bad-mouthing U-M I wouldn't be pleased. If Rice came out in public ripping on the guy, while he was there, or after he was fired, I think people would wonder why he wasn't being supportive or at least staying quiet rather than allowing his comments to be used to undermine the program.
Braylon said that he was okay with Hoke giving #1 jersey to whoever he wanted to give it to. So Hoke should give it to JT Floyd.
But Brandy has some major logistical issues with flying to Lions games anyway, squeezing in a Saturday night taping as well wasn't his cup of tea. Though listening to him groggy reacting to another Lions turnover was entertaining.
I think the way to read any Brandon interviews (at least the football parts) is to read it three times: Read it under the assumption that he's decided to jettison Rodriguez, read it under the assumption that he's decided to keep him, then read it under the assumption that he's not sure. I think, if anything, that his statements about "selling Michigan" to recruits, not coaches, don't bode well for Rich (for the record, I'm more pro-Rodriguez than anti).
It doesn't take into account initial field position--and doesn't also account for lousy FG kicking, which is not the offense's fault. That's why the advanced metrics, which take into account likelihood of scoring given starting position, are even more relevant.
For baseball geeks, we've gone from RBIs to Bill James' runs created to PECOTA and other complex metrics. The main reason for choosing the least favorable, less sophisticated metric is to advance a position not supported by more developed metrics. I understand why Brian finds that less than useful.
Michigan has a lot of banged up players, in particular Denard. I suspect the bowl game will feature the offense's best performance of the season. Now maybe that won't be enough to outscore the opposition, but I'm actually looking forward to the bowl game.
BTW, without Andrew Luck where would Jim Harbaugh be likely to coach next year?
Field position matters when your team has a reasonable chance of stopping a drive. Field position matters a lot less when you're not stopping the other team. This is especially true when you're down 2 or more scores -- you need possessions and an onside kick, especially a surprise one, is a great way to get those possessions.
The best satire takes reality and twists it just a little bit to create absurdity. That's why this is so perfectly done, it reads like a typical Rosenberg piece with all the snarky asides.
Telander played DB at Northwestern for Alex Agase. 20 years later he wrote a book that was very critical of college football, "The 100 Yard Lie". In the book he attacked Agase for, among other grave sins, telling Telander he needed a haircut.
Bo Schembechler was close to Agase and was asked about the book. The questioner asked whether it had more credibility because Telander been a college football player. Bo said (paraphrasing) "I don't know how much of a player he was, I can't remember designing too many plays to go away from him".
I don't think it's because of his talent as much as because of the "outside" reaction to his signing. A lot of U-M fans feel defensive of him because they think he got a raw deal from the press in February. I think that's the main difference with Witty -- Witty certainly filled a need himself and was missed last year, so I'm not sure that's a good comaparison.
Are we more concerned about Dorsey because he's a great athlete than we would be if he was a great violinaist? Sure. That's why we're on this site rather than MGoOrchestra.
I can comment on being an unnamed source for journalists. Generally speaking, as noted above, the unnamed source is useful to the reporter in pointing him/her to the actual story.
The source also can give background and context as well as the scoop -- and that information helps the reporter be fully educated on the matter before seeking on the record comments from the target of the story.
The whistleblower unnamed source is far less common than the "informed party who knows where the bodies are buried" type of unnamed source. Whistleblower information really has to be vetted thoroughly because it may be false, may be incorrect, or may represent a misunderstanding (such as players who, like Rosenberg/Snyder, didn't understand the countable/non-countable rule).
In contrast the "hey, you might want to talk to John Doe about that sewage contract, there's something fishy there" information doesn't need as much vetting -- the reporter just calls John Doe. Rosenberg and friends relied on the supposed whistleblowers, but it's clear that they did so in a very haphazard, sloppy manner. Not that they or the Free Press will ever admit that.
He's the Freep's editor/publisher. It was clear to me after three times back and forth that he was being totally disingenuous. If the editor/publisher of a paper is going to throw out weak red herrings instead of making an actual defense of a major story, that casts doubt on everything his paper does.
Insert "Jerry probably wanted to apply the razor to his wrists after seeing that OSU quintuple penetration photo below" joke here
Time of possession is an effect, not a cause. Each team had roughly the same number of possessions, as they do in every game.
Michigan had two one-play TD drives and a punt return for a TD. They had a 14-7 lead with 5:42 left in the first with Purdue having had three full possessions and Michigan having run one offensive play. That greatly skewed the TOP stat, giving Purdue a 9-minute advantage at a time when Michigan had a 7-point lead.
The issue wasn't time of possession; it was Michigan's inability to stop long Purdue drives, which resulted in two things: more points and more TOP. The former is far more important.
. . . is why is a respectable journalist like Rosenberg now channeling Rob Parker?
Total speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that, while doing his Bo/Woody book, Rosenberg spent a lot of time around players from that era--many of whom presumably were pro-Miles. That's better than hanging around people who were pro-DeBord, I guess. Rosenberg's writings on Rodriguez read like writings from someone who's been living in a cocoon of anti-RichRod groupthink for the past few months.
I've always felt that red zone scoring should be evaluated based on average points per red zone possession. For simplicity's sake, I'd just award 7 points for a TD and of course 3 for a FG.
Oklahoma would thus be 17*7 = 119 + 3 = 122 in 18 red zone possessions, or 6.8 points per possession, which is astounding. I'm guessing 5 is a more typical average.