First and foremost, I am glad the Athletic Department has gone back to using yellow student shirts after the (horrible) year of blue in 2005. The yellow looks infinitely better, as documented by the Hoover Street Rag (also an interesting post on other points, and I generally agree with it). However, the new issue I raise is the task of actually getting students to wear them.

The TShirt Option
The first mistake the administration makes in this respect is allowing the purchase of a shirt to be optional with a student ticket purchase. By simply bundling the shirt with the tickets – no option – the department would guarantee that everyone in the student section at least has access to one maize shirt. At the very least the option to buy the shirt on the ticket order form could be checked by default – I would much rather have students accidentally buy the shirt than accidentally not buy it (which I did in both 2004 and 2005 – I didn’t bother buying the terrible blue thing in 2005 after I mistakenly didn’t order it originally).

Maize Outs
Another area in which the athletic department fails is marking a select few student tickets (last year, it was two games) with the “Maize Out” distinction. In the student section, every game should be a maize out. IF the department would like to mark tickets in other sections, by all means go ahead (I don’t know if they currently do, but by the results of past maize outs, I would assume not). Telling students that a couple games will be maize outs gives the impression that other trips to the Big House have no unofficial dress code, when in fact they should.

The Greek Community
Aside from arriving any time after 7:00 in the first quarter, and leaving in the mid-third the Greek Community at Michigan also serves as a detriment to student section glory. I’m not talking about the seemingly endless supply of Mike Hart and Tom Brady (who they hadn’t even heard of before Super Bowl 38) jerseys available at AEPi and Pike fraternity houses, but rather the “Show Your Letters” shirts that are always worn in the fall by Greeks. Most (all?) chapters require their members to wear these shirts on football Saturdays, and they are always blue (or in some cases, pink for sororities). The athletic department should reach out to the Interfraternal Council and the Panhellenic organization to work toward having shirts that accomplish the missions of both the Greeks (advertising) and the AD (uniform yellowness).

Maize Jerseys
Finally, I know it is not a popular idea among many Michigan fans (particularly the traditionalists), but a maize jersey for the football team (for example, during a maize out night game, novl idea, I know) would go a long way toward assisting in a maized out student section with regularity. Those same people who insist on wearing their OMG TOM BRADY jersey to the game would have an OMG SAM MCGUFFIE option that would not hinder the chromatic continuity of the student section.

Posted under Analysis

I don’t intend for this blog to become a link factory, but I think this is an important read.

It sounds like Boren has huge issues with the new coaching staff.

Posted under Personnel

So what does the grand exit of Justin Boren mean to the team? Well, the best offensive lineman is now gone, and one of the two starters who was returning from a talented-but-underachieving 2007 group. Jake Long and Adam Kraus graduated, and Alex Mitchell left the program (he would likely have not made it through spring conditioning, and may have seen the writing on the wall). Now, only Steve Schilling is back for Michigan’s o-line. The reason I only planned for pre-spring and post-spring depth charts (until fall camp, of course), is because of the unpredictability of events like this. A lot of freshmen will likely have to play in the fall.

Unless Rich Rodriguez is able to work some magic and bring Boren back to the team, the unit will be very shaky in 2008. However, given the language Rodriguez used when speaking about Boren (or avoiding speaking about him), it is unlikely that we will see Justin back. This also means that his younger brother Zach is probably out of the picture for the 2009 recruiting class. Boren’s departure will also affect the 209 recruiting class by forcing Rodriguez to take a second very large class of offensive linemen. If they can get production out of the younger players, there will be a very experienced line in the 2010 and 2011 seasons.

Posted under Personnel, Recruiting

Ending two days of speculation, Michigan head coach Rich Rodriguez confirmed at his press conference today that Justin Boren has left the Michigan football team. Boren was projected as a starter at one of the guard positions in the fall, and was likely the best lineman on the team. This defection leaves the team dangerously thin along the line. Boren’s father, Mike, played for Bo in the early 80s, and his brother Zach is a 2009 defensive end/fullback/nose guard prospect.

Justin Boren

Boren is the latest in a long line of players leaving the Michigan program since Rodriguez was announced as head coach. Wide receivers Mario Manningham and Adrian Arrington opted to forgo their senior seasons to enter the NFL draft. Quarterback Ryan Mallett transfered to Arkansas, and linemen Alex Mitchell and Jeremy Cuilla left for personal reasons.

Posted under Personnel

The Board.

Thanks to a couple guys who e-mailed me about new prospects, and always to Brian, for unearthing a few I hadn’t heard about yet. I checked out these guys and added the ones I found to meet the arbitrary criteria I established for the board.

Added:
OH DE Devon Curtis. A high school teammate of Patrick Omameh.

New Information:
VA QB Kevin Newsome will not play QB if he goes to WVU. Track article on Newsome and HS teammate Javanti Sparrow.
MD LB Jelani Jenkins may want to stay closer to home, according to his coach.
MN WR Bryce McNeal on the GopherHole.
UT OL Xavier Sua’Filo is committed to the ESPNU Under Armour game.
MI DT William Campbell and PA LB Dorian Bell are committed to the Army game.
NC S Devonte Holloman fluff from Yahoo.
TX S Craig Loston is down to two schools. I don’t think either of them is Michigan.

Etc.: Toledo Blade article on the QB situation. Recruiting fluff from the Freep. Administration Op-Ed responding to the Carticle.

Posted under Recruiting

One of the great allures of the bowl season is being able to see evenly-matched teams duke it out on a neutral site. However, is that perception or reality? Of course, the teams aren’t always evenly matched (see USC v. Illinois), nor is the site ever truly neutral (see USC v. Illinois). Fans of the SEC are always quick to cite their good record in bowl games (and any other stat that perpetuates the OMG SEC AWESOMEZ myth). What they are failing to mention is that the SEC has a de facto home game for many of their games. What other conferences are favored? Let’s take a look.

2008 bowl season winning percentage by conference:

Average Distance from Bowl Site (in miles as the crow flies) tells us, on average, how far each conference team had to travel to get to their game. However, this doesn’t tell us the whole story. If two teams are both very far from the bowl in which they will be playing, there is no real home field advantage ceded for either one. To give a better idea of home-field advantage, it would be better to look at how much location may favor one team over the other. Delta distance measures how much closer to bowl site a team is over their opponent. The conference numbers are sums of all of these (in miles as the crow flies). As you can see, the PAC-10 and SEC are heavily favored by this, as is the Mountain West conference. Perhaps not coincidentally, these have the highest win percentages of any conference. Of note is the fact that every single SEC team had a positive Delta distance. That is, they were all closer to their bowl site than the opponent.

Of course, the sample sizes are very small, so it is hard to draw any definite conclusions, but it is apparent that some conferences are favored rather heavily by the locations of their bowls. If anyone would like this data to work with the numbers a bit more, drop your contact information in the comments.

Posted under Analysis

Michigan Senior Kevin Porter has been named to this list of Ten semi-finalists for the Hobey Baker Award, college hockey’s top individual honor. Porter leads the nation in scoring. Here’s what the Hobey Baker folks have to say about Kevin:

Kevin Porter – Michigan, Senior, Forward, Northville, Michigan
Consistency defines the nation’s leading scorer as the Wolverine captain has produced points in all but six of the 38 games he’s played. Porter helped guide his team to the CCHA regular season title and is a finalist for the league’s Player of the Year award and Best Defensive Forward award. He was also named to the CCHA First Team.

• In 38 games, has 28 goals, 28 assists for 56 points – 14 PPG is third in nation
• Second in the country in goals and tied for ninth in assists – 16 multi-point games
• Was third in the nation in scoring last year – Phoenix draft pick

To vote for Porter in the Hobey Baker semifinals, visit the official website. Porter and the Wolverines will take on Miami in the CCHA finals tonight at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit. Fans can catch the game on FSN Detroit at 7:35.

Posted under Hockey

Because I don’t feel like coming up with any real content this weekend.

Posted under Spring Coverage

…a post about a team that wasn’t even close to getting there!

Michigan’s 2007-08 season was a disappointment by almost any standards. Not only did Michigan not make the postseason, but the Wolverines were well below .500, and lost to opponents both superior and inferior. A lack of senior leadership (Ron Coleman was the team’s only graduating player) and overall depth (Michigan had only 9ish scholarship players after several Wolverines left the program) were key factors leading to the poor outcome for the team. A lack of players who were capable of running John Beilein’s offensive system, which is heavy on three pointers, was also a stumbling block.

The future, however, is much brighter. Michigan loses only Ronald Coleman as a scholarship player, and has three incoming freshmen who are better fits for the Beilein offense than the players left behind by Tommy Amaker. Ben Cronin, a big man who can shoot, and a pair of shooting guards with long range capabilities in Stu Douglass and Zach Novak spell a brighter future for the team. Additionally, Arizona transfer Laval Lucas-Perry will bring additional talent. Losing Coleman is not a big hit. Though he was recruited as a shooter, he could not hit from the outside consistently enough for Beilein’s system.

Roster Analysis – 2008-09

With 13 scholarships allowed for the team, Michigan will either be able to take one more freshman next year, or bank the schollie for the following recruiting class and give it to preferred walkon Eric Puls. Please note that the roster on MGoBlue is terrible, so this may not be entirely accurate.

Minutes Played: Top 4 return. (Harris, Sims, Udoh, Grady).
Points Scored: Top 6 return. (Harris, Sims, Udoh, Grady, Gibson, Wright).
Steals: Top 5 return. (Harris, Sims, Udoh, Lee, Grady).
Blocks: Top 6 return. (Udoh, Sims, Gibson, Harris, Wright, Shepherd).
Assists: Top 3 return. (Grady, Harris, Lee).

The main scary part is assist-to-turnover ratio. While the top two (Kelvin Grady and C.J. Lee) return, Coleman was third, and at 1.25 the only other player with more than one assist per turnover. Fans can take heart in the fact that two of the top three Michigan players in terms of turnovers (Manny Harris and Kelvin Grady) were just freshman, and it stands to reason that they have nowhere to go but up.

Posted under Basketball

Locus of Control is a psychological term referring to whether a person believes that, in a given situation, they control the outcome (internal locus of control), or if they are being forced into a given outcome by the circumstances (external locus of control). Here, it is applied to college football defensive coordinators.

Defensively, belief in an internal locus of control would lead a coordinator to create a system and scheme wherein the defense attacks the offense, and forces them into making adjustments to the defenders. Belief in an external locus of control would consist of soft zone teams, and schemes that are primarily based upon a read-and-react ideology. Of course, offenses go into every given play with either a run or pass called, so the defense does not have quite the autonomy that an offensive team might have.

Defensive coordinators who believe in a scheme that places faith in an external locus of control are those who run almost all zones, and believe that their superior execution can prevent opponents from moving the ball down the field and scoring. In defensive fronts and linebackers, former Michigan defensive coordinator Jim Herrmann’s “read and react” ideology is the perfect example of external locus of control. By definition, you think the offense controls the play, and you hope to stop what they are doing after it begins its progress.

At the other end of the spectrum is the internal locus of control. Defensive coordinators that utilize heavy blitzing are certainly believers in this. The blitzes are designed to force the offense into changing what it wants to do. For running, that would be cause the running back to say “oh shit, I’m screwed,” and for passing, it would be either sacking the quarterback or forcing him to make a bad throw (or one that doesn’t get his team a first down). Along the front, internal locus of control coordinators would like their defensive linemen to play downhill and get after the quarterback or running back.

So which type of defensive philosophy is better? It really all depends. If a team has superior athletes, it can easily sit back in a zone and play bend-not-break principles. On the other hand, it can also play aggressively, and rack up a lot of negative plays for the opposing offense – but likely give up a big play or two the other way. With inferior talent, it will be hard for defensive linemen or blitzers to get through blockers (without sending so many men as to risk giving up an easy big play to the other team), so they are more likely to play soft, and hope they can not break, or come up with some stops. Like pretty much everything in football strategy, a mix of the two ideals is preferable.

In 2006 and 2007, Michigan defensive coordinator Ron English played with a balanced defensive system. From some games, it is apparent that he preferred to attack, believing in an internal locus of control. However, over the course of both seasons, it seems as though he wasn’t always allowed to run the defense the way he wanted, and the overall coaching philosophy of the program was to play it a little more safely.

In 2008, new Michigan defensive coordinator Scott Shafer will run a defensive scheme that believes wholeheartedly in an internal locus of control. His teams will blitz heavily, and place an emphasis on getting into the backfield to take down the running back or quarterback. This aggressive philosophy (especially with Michigan’s veteran defensive front) will allow Michigan to rack up many tackles for loss, but could also result in big plays given up to the opposition. However, as he told me earlier this year, the scheme will also react to what the offense is doing (though I believe he meant that as more of a formational adjustment, not an adjustment to the plays the offense is running).

Posted under Coaching