Wisconsin Offense:
QBs
For the second year in a row, the Badgers must replace their starting QB. Allan Evridge was the backup to Tyler Donovan last year, but got very little game experience. He was originally a Kansas State Wildcat who transferred to Wisconsin after his redshirt freshman year, in which he actually got some pretty significant playing time. Now Evridge is the man, and he will use his fifth year to lead Wisconsin. Backing him up is junior Dustin Shearer, who has gotten almost no playing time in his first two years. Incoming freshman Curt Phillips will add depth, along with a couple guys expected to ride pine.

Statistics:

Wisconsin Quarterbacks Passing 2007
Name	Comp	Att	%	Yds	TD	Int	Yds/Att
Tyler Donovan	193	333	57.96	2607	17	11	7.83
Allan Evridge	5	12	41.67	66	0	0	5.50

Wisconsin Quarterbacks Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
Tyler Donovan	112	277	5	2.47
Allan Evridge	2	-3	0	-1.50

Analysis:
One of the reasons Donovan was favored to win the job over Evridge last year was his superior mobility. Evridge will not be expected to run the ball like Donovan (sometimes) did, nor will he be as elusive in the pocket. Evridge is essentially an unknown, as he hasn’t played in three years, never in this system. He will likely be the standard Wisconsin caretaker-as-QB that is expected to do little other than throw on third down and not turn it over.

RBs
RS Junior PJ Hill is a fatty, who bulldozes rather than eluding tacklers. He was injured for much of last year, allowing other players to get a chance to shine. Sophomore Zach Brown finished second on the team in yardage, but expect several other players to be in the mix, including redshirt freshman John Clay (a faster bruiser, he was injured last year) and junior Lance Smith, who may be the most talented of the backups.

Statistics:

Wisconsin Running Backs Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
PJ Hill	233	1212	14	5.20
Zach Brown	119	568	5	4.77
Lance Smith	71	429	3	6.04
Chris Pressley	8	56	1	7.00
Bill Rentmeester	9	39	1	4.33

Wisconsin Running Backs Receiving 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
PJ Hill	14	89	1	6.36
Zach Brown	4	23	0	5.75
Chris Pressley	2	8	1	4.00
Lance Smith	1	6	0	6.00

Analysis:
Wisconsin’s offense will always be based upon the run game (well, maybe I shouldn’t say “always” since the same could be said of Minnesota until the past year), and they have a variety of options in the backfield. From the bowling ball PJ Hill, to a little speedster like Lance Smith, there are distinct styles that bring their own strengths. With a lot of experience (the Badgers didn’t graduate a single RB after last year), this should be a strong group. If Hill can remain healthy, he should be near the top of the Big Ten in rushing yardage.

Receivers:
Official White Guy Luke Swan is gone, as is Paul Hubbard. The wideouts will be led by Kyle Jefferson, a true sophomore who was third on the team in receiving yards last year, and David Gilreath. As a true freshman last year, Gilreath was not particularly involved in the passing game, but he did lead the team in all-purpose returns. He is slightly undersized (especially when compared to the 6-5 Hubbard), but speedy. A host of sophomores will be backing them up, including Nick Toon (OK, he’s actually a redshirt freshman, but seriously, look at this class of receivers), Isaac Anderson, and Daven Jones. Non-sophomores include slight junior Xavier Harris, who had 2 receptions last year. The tight end was featured prominently in the passing game last year, and with the #1 and #4 receivers for the Badgers in ’07 both returning, it should be more of the same this year. Senior Travis Beckum should be 1st-team All-conference, and junior Garrett Graham is a good receiver as well.

Statistics:

Wisconsin Receivers 2007
Name	Rec	Yds	TD	Yds/Rec
Travis Beckum (TE)	75	982	6	13.09
Luke Swan	25	451	2	18.04
Kyle Jefferson	26	412	2	15.85
Garrett Graham (TE)	30	328	4	10.93
Paul Hubbard	14	305	0	21.79
Xavier Harris	2	30	0	15.00
David Gilreath	1	10	0	10.00
Marcus Randle El	1	9	0	9.00
Daven Jones	1	9	0	9.00
Sean Lewis (TE)	1	7	0	7.00
Andy Crooks (TE)	1	4	0	4.00

Wisconsin Receivers Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
David Gilreath	7	15	0	6.14
Kyle Jefferson	2	11	0	5.35
Travis Beckum (TE)	4	6	0	5.00

Analysis:
The tight ends are a HUGE part of this passing game. There are lots of TE screens and even a couple designed runs for Beckum on end-arounds. With few proven WRs returning, expect Beckum and Graham to be an even larger part of this offense than they were last year (When Beckum got three times as many catches as the top WR). Wisconsin may have trouble stretching the field unless some of the young receivers who didn’t get a ton of catches last year are able to develop into legitimate threats. Still, the passing game here is definitely secondary to the run. If Beckum were to get injured, Wisconsin could be screwed as far as passing.

Line:
Wisconsin is known for its offensive lines, and their ability to push defenders out of the way. At left tackle, redshirt sophomore Gabe Carimi returns. He started every game last year as a redshirt freshman. Andy Kemp at left guard is a senior who has been starting for two year (though ast year he had to played both guard positions in different games). Center John Moffitt is new to the position, but he did start several games last year as a redshirt freshman at the left guard position. Senior right guard Craig Urbik has started for three years, at right tackle his redshirt freshman year, right guard in 2006, and both last year (though he played primarily at guard). Right tackle Eric VanderHeuvel has also been starting for 2 years at right tackle, though the senior was injured for three games last year. Like usual, Wisconsin manages to play an experienced offensive line.

Analysis:
With four and a half returning starters, three of them seniors, the Wisconsin offensive line is poised to be a strong point in the 2008 team. They will be accustomed to working together, and should be able to pave the way for the Badger run game. They should also do a god job protecting Allan Evridge, which is a plus for Wisconsin as he isn’t as mobile as his predecessor.

Offensive Analysis:
Wisconsin will run the ball a lot and pass when necessary. This can be said for pretty much every year, but especially in 2008, when they have a very strong offensive line, several returning runners (not losing any from 2007), and question marks at quarterback and receiver. When they do pass the ball, the tight ends will be featured prominently. This should be a very good offense based solely on the returning talent.

Wisconsin Defense:
Defensive Line:
Matt Shaughnessy, who has been at Wisconsin since dinosaurs roamed the earth, returns for one last season at defensive end. The senior has been all-conference second team the past two years. Defensive tackles Jason Chapman and Mike Newkirk are both seniors who return as starters. They are both a little undersized, with Newkirk seeming more like a defensive end at 260 pounds. At the final position, the second defensive end is sophomore Kirk DeCremer. The pass-rusher was injured and missed spring practice. Despite not starting for most of last year, he led the team in sacks. The backups are moderately inexperienced, which makes sense when you consider how seasoned most of the starters are. Jason Stehl was the only one to accumulate stats last year, while O’Brien Schofield did start the Outback Bowl last year.

Statistics:

Wisconsin Defensive Line 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sacks
Matt Shaughnessy	60	18	4
Nick Hayden	48	8.5	4.5
Mike Newkirk	41	10.5	1
Kirk DeCremer	30	9	5.5
Jason Chapman	26	2.5	2
Jeff Stehl	9	0	0
Brandon Kelly	5	0.5	0
Kurt Ware	12	0	0

Analysis:
A veteran unit, with not a ton proven behind it. Shaughnessy and DeCremer make a very strong DE tandem, while Newkirk and Chapman are adequate in the middle. Wisconsin should have a pretty good pass rush, and be above average against the run. I question how well they’ll do with their starters out. Those slated for backup duty this year had 9 tackles between them las
t year, all coming from Jeff Stehl.

Linebackers:
The outside linebackers, Jonathan Casillas (weakside) and DeAndre Levy (strongside) are both seniors who have started every game for the past two years. Casillas is speedy, and he also has good size. Levy is a strong, stout player, with decent height, but not the speed of Casillas. In the middle, redshirt junior Elijah Hodge returns after starting last year (though he missed a couple games with an injury). The backups are generally fairly young, except for junior Jaevery McFadden. Culmer St. Jean and Blake Sorensen got some PT last year.

Statistics:

Wisconsin Linebackers 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sack
Jonathan Casillas	96	9	1
Deandre Levy	70	10	3
Elijah Hodge	67	7.5	0
Culmer St. Jean	17	0.5	0
Blake Sorensen	14	0	0
Jaevery McFadden	13	0.5	0
O’Brien Schofield	8	0	0
Ryan Flasch	7	0	0
Casey Hogan	7	0	0
Steven Johnson	2	0	0
Erik Prather	1	0	0

Analysis:
Behind the starters, there is very little proven depth for Wisconsin. The starters are pretty good, though, and with three seniors returning, they should be a very formidable unit. Casillas has the speed to track running plays sideline-to-sideline, and that could be a damper on Michigan’s run game.

Defensive Backs:
Allen Langford is the lone senior in the defensive backfield, and he will be a 4 year starter who took over during his redshirt freshman season, and missed a couple games last year with injury. He will now be the #1 corner with Jack Ikegwuonu leaving a year early for the NFL draft. Starting opposite Langford will be true sophomore Aaron Henry. The backups are Niles Brinkley, Mario Goins, and Josh Nettles. At safety, both Aubrey Pleasant and Shane Carter started every game last year as sophomores. Carter was a big playmaker, leading the conference in picks.

Statistics:

Wisconsin Defensive Backs 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sack	Int
Shane Carter	56	0	0	7
Aubrey Pleasant	47	3	2	0
Aaron Henry	38	3.5	0	1
Ben Strickland	35	0	0	1
Allen Langford	33	1	0	1
Jack Ikegwuonu	24	0	0	1
Kim Royston	14	0	0	0
Josh Nettles	9	0	0	1
Jay Valai	4	1	0	0
William Hartmann	1	0	0	0

Analysis:
Again, the Badgers are experienced at a position. Ikegwuonu, had he returned, would have made this a very strong secondary, After a great 2006, he went pro after a subpar ’07. The Badgers shouldn’t be severely deficient in any facet. This looks to be another strong group. The one worry I have about this secondary is last year’s performance. Though they were stellar in 2006, it was a poor year (by Bret Bielema standards) in 2007. Minus 1 NFL player, how much can they improve.

Defensive Analysis:
Wisconsin has a very very strong defense. They have returning starters at all but one position in each of the three units, and will be starting 6 seniors. They have quickness, but I wonder whether they will be that strong against a power run game.

Special Teams:
Wisconsin has a new kicker in redshirt freshman Phillip Welch. If he doesn’t pan out, Matt Fischer will handle the duties. At punter, the Badgers are going to count on a kid named Brad. Ken DeBauche’s brother is a redshirt freshman, or incoming freshman Nortman could take the duties.

Analysis:
Wisconsin’s return game should be good in the hands of David Gilreath, but the kicking game will be a huge questino mark going into the season. This may be a key weakness for Wisconsin.

Overall Analysis:
As long as Allan Evridge doesn’t suck to Anthony Morellian proportions, the Badgers should be a damn good team next year. they have strong lines, a ton of returning starters on defense, and a stable of experienced (but young) running backs. Looking at this, I don’t see how they could be considered anything less than second best in the conference – though the three game stretch at Michigan, home to Ohio State and Penn State may have something to do with it.

Posted under Analysis

Notre Dame Offense:
QBs
After starting several QBs last year (with few positive results), the Irish are likely to turn to Jimmy Clausen full-time. Clausen was the class of 2007 uber-recruit, and if he is healthy this year (which he apparently wasn’t last year), he can only improve on his performance. Evan Sharpley, who spent the spring at first base for the Irish, will return to the gridiron as the #2 guy. The distance between Clausen and Sharpley likely isn’t that great. After Charlie Weis ran off all of ND’s other quarterbacks, true freshman Dayne Crist might gain some playing time as #3.

Statistics:

Notre Dame Quarterbacks Passing 2007
Name	Comp	Att	%	Yds	TD	Int	Yds/Att
Jimmy Clausen	138	245	56.33	1254	7	6	5.12
Evan Sharpley	77	140	55.00	736	5	3	5.26
Demetrius Jones	1	3	33.33	4	0	0	1.33

Notre Dame Quarterbacks Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
Demetrius Jones	12	28	0	2.33
Evan Sharpley	38	-95	0	-2.5
Jimmy Clausen	62	-187	2	-3.02

Analysis:
Demetrius Jones’s stats were accumulated in the opener before Charlie Weis revealed that he had no intentions of actually , you know, playing him. Clausen should be improved, especially since most of his problems were due to awful protection. After he sat out two games later in the year, he performed well in the final three games (albeit against Air Force, Duke, and Stanford). His production against opponents with a pulse should be somewhere between that and how he performed earlier in the year.

RBs
Junior James Aldridge was the Irish’s leading rusher last year, though he gained more than 100 yards only against Michigan State and Navy. He is a classic I-formation tailback, with enough size to take a beating between the tackles. However, he lacks elite speed. Backing him up is sophomore Armando Allen. Allen approached 100 yards against Navy (his best game). Sophomore Robert Hughes is a bruiser back, and he got a taste of playing time last year as well. Many think other schools didn’t recruit him as hard as expected because of his plodding speed. Redshirt junior FB Asaph Schwapp returns to pave the way for the running backs. Walkon Luke Schmidt provides a bit of depth.

Statistics:

Notre Dame Running Backs Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
James Aldridge	121	463	0	3.83
Armando Allen	86	348	0	4.05
Robert Hughes	53	294	4	5.55
Trav is Thomas	27	58	5	2.15
Junior Jabbie	10	28	0	2.80
Asaph Schwapp	12	14	0	1.17

Notre Dame Running Backs Receiving 2007
Name	Rec	Yds	TD	Yds/Rec
Armando Allen	24	124	1	5.17
Junior Jabbie	14	123	0	8.79
James Aldridge	5	30	0	6.00
Asaph Schwapp	3	27	0	9.00
Robert Hughes	3	17	0	5.67
Luke Schmidt	3	16	0	5.33

Analysis:
While the Irish RBs aren’t exactly game-breakers, their lack of success in 2007 was more on account of horrid OL play than a lack of ability on their end. They are adequate between-the-tackles types, and should have more success in 2008.

Receivers:
Senior David Grimes brings the most experience of the WR corps. He has been a role player for the past 3 years, and will likely stay out of the spotlight this year, as sophomore Duval Kamara will get the most balls thrown his way. Junior Robby Parris and Kamara are both over 6-3, and are likely to be jump ball threats. They led ND WRs last year. Freshman Michael Floyd should get significant playing time, and don’t be surprised if he is starting by the end of the year. Tiny George West (5-8) will get some playing time at a slot-type position, and Golden Tate will look to augment his returning duties with more consistent receptions. He was electric when he could get the ball last year. At tight end, 5th-year senior John Carlson has departed, leaving junior Will Yeatman and true sophomore Mike Ragone to fill the void. Yeatman is a mountain of a man at 6-6, 263, but managed to get more receptions than Ragone last year.

Statistics:

Notre Dame Receivers 2007
Name	Rec	Yds	TD	Yds/Rec
John Carlson (TE)	40	372	3	9.30
Robby Parris	29	361	1	12.45
Duval Kamara	32	357	4	11.16
David Grimes	27	224	2	8.30
George West	21	172	0	8.19
Golden Tate	6	131	1	21.83
Will Yeatman (TE)	6	37	0	6.17
DJ Hord	2	7	0	3.5
Mike Ragone (TE)	1	7	0	7.00

Analysis:
Much like running backs, the main problem for receivers was the OL. If the Irish front five can buy enough time for the wideouts to get open, this should be a better year production-wise. Charlie Weis has to do a better job scheming to get Golden Tate the ball. He could excel from a slot position with two tall guys on the outside. I expect to see Yeatman and Ragone get about equal playing time. Yeatman’s size should make him a great blocker (and, if last year is any indication, the OL needs all the help they can get), whereas Ragone is more of a receiver. Without a proven TE, I wonder if the young QBs’ security blanket will be gone.

Line:
Mega lolz @ ND last year. They were far and away the worst offensive line in Division I football. Before ND apologists (like Charlie Weis) make excuses that they don’t have the talent, keep in mind that the Irish started the following players:

Notre Dame O-Line 2007
LT	LG	C	RG	RT
Sam Young	Mike Turkovich	John Sullivan	Eric Olsen/ Dan Wenger	Paul Duncan
5-star	4-star	4-star	4-star	4-star
Sophomore	Junior	5th Year	Sophomore/ RS Freshman	Junior
13 Career Starts	15 Career Starts	33 Career Starts	Playing time as frosh/ none.	Backup 1st 2 years.

This was not an inexperienced or untalented line. Their lack of success speaks primarily to poor coaching, both positionally and from the offensive coordinator. With Weis ceding playcalling duties, they may improve in that respect, but their position coach remains the same. Fortunately for the Irish, almost everyone is back, except their best player, center John Sullivan. Wenger will slide over to take his spot, and the other positions should remain the same.

Analysis:
A year more experience will do the Irish some good, though losing their best player on the OL must hurt, especially when he was a leader like Sullivan was. Center will be the weak point of the Irish line, but they should improve in all respects. It’s hard to imagine them being any worse.

Offensive Analysis:
The Irish offense certainly can’t perform any worse than it did last year. With more experience everywhere, and only two key losses (Carlson and Sullivan), expect improvement. I question the position coaching pretty much everywhere (but mostly on the OL), but the Irish have talent. With Weis no longer calling plays, the sequencing should improve dramatically.

Notre Dame Defense:
Defensive Line:
The Irish are in the second year of their transition to the 3-4 defense. They lose both of their starting DEs from last year in Trevor Laws and Dwight Stephenson. Junior John Ryan comes down from a linebacker position to fill one of the needs, and senior Justin Brown will man the other spot. Pat Kuntz, a senior, returns at the nose. I question whether these three guys have enough size to be the space-eaters that the 3-4 defense requires its linemen to be. The ends are closer to linebackers, and Kuntz is more like a DE. Backing up the D-Linemen are Redshirt freshman Emeka Nwankwo, Ian Williams, and Morrice Richardson.

Statistics:

Notre Dame Defensive Line 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sacks
Trevor Laws	112	8	4
Ian Williams	45	1.5	0
Pat Kuntz	43	2.5	0
Dwight Stephenson	40	4.5	1
Justin Brown	30	3.5	1
Morrice Richardson	7	1.5	1
Darrell Hand	3	0	0
Paddy Mullen	1	0	0

Analysis:
I’m not too concerned about the returners’ lack of production last year, since the 3-4 scheme doesn’t allow linemen to get a lot of stats. However, it’s the aforementioned lack of size that is troubling for the Irish. I think opposing OLs worth anything will be able to discard the DL much more easily than the Irish would like, and the linebackers won’t be free to roam. Another thing that Irish fans might be worried about is the semester-long absence of Pat Kuntz. He missed the spring, which may mean he needs a few games to get back up to speed.

Linebackers:
Notre Dame had approximately 6,000 linebackers play last year as they tried to find a set of four who were something other than miserable. Of their best unit, they lose all but Maurice Crum. Moving into starting positions will be sophomore Brian Smith on the strongside, and junior Toryan Smith at MLB, if he can fend off freshman Steve Filer. Sophomore Kerry Neal will take over on the weakside. Key backups lost include Anthony Vernaglia at the strongside, meaning ND is promoting a third-stringer to a starting role. Scott Smith, Steve Quinn, and Kellen Wade will by key backups.

Statistics:

Notre Dame Linebackers 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sack	Int	FumRec
Joe Brockington	108	8.5	1	0	0
Maurice Crum	83	3.5	1	2	1
John Ryan*	39	5	2.5	0	0
Anothony Vernaglia	20	1	0	0	0
Kerry Neal	20	2	2	0	1
Scott Smith	18	0	0	0	0
Toryan Smith	14	1	0	0	0
Travis Thomas*	5	0	0	0	0
Steve Quinn	5	1	0	0	0
Kevin Washington	2	0	0	0	0

* Notes: Ryan has moved to the defensive line for 2008. Thomas alternated between RB and LB during his career, so his stats are included.

Analysis:
The 3-4 system is designed to feature the linebackers, and these guys didn’t impress at all last year. Losing three starters certainly won’t help them improve on their 2007 performance. These LBs are neither athletic nor tough enough to anchor a defense, and it appears as though Charlie Weis’s genius switch to the 3-4 defense was not a great idea. With superior position coaching from Jon Tenuta, this group may be serviceable in ’08.

Defensive Backs:
Terrail Lambert and Darrin Walls return at the corner positions. Lambert is a 5th-year senior, while Walls is a true junior. Between them, they started nearly every game last year, and Lambert was a starter in ’06 as well. At the safety positions, David Bruton returns at free, while Tom Zbikowski (fyi, I’ve heard he’s a boxer) will be replaced at strong safety by fellow slow white guy K
yle McCarthy. None of ND’s returning players have impressed so far in their careers, while redshirt junior McCarthy is stepping into some big shoes (though Zbikowski sucked despite the hype).

Statistics:

Notre Dame Defensive Backs 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sack	Int
David Bruton	85	4.5	1	3
Tom Zbikowski	80	1.5	1	2
Terrail Lambert	34	0	0	1
Darrin Walls	32	2.5	0	1
Ambrose Wooden	27	0	0	0
Kyle McCarthy	20	0	0	1
Raeshon McNeil	9	1	1	0
Mike Anello	7	0	0	0
Sergio Brown	7	0	0	0
Jashaad Gaines	6	0	0	0
Leo Ferrine	3	0	0	0
Munir Prince	3	0	0	0
Ray Herring	3	0	0	0
William David Williams	1	0	0	0

Analysis:
Though Terrail Lambert and Darrin Walls have played a lot, that unfortunately means little more than stepping onto the field and getting torched over and over again. Bruton was decent last year, though uninspiring. The experience of this group should provide the most comfort to fans, but the corners are slow, and McCarthy is no speed demon either. Matching up with speedy teams should be a huge problem.

Defensive Analysis:
Notre Dame, despite a lot of “solid, but uninspiring” comments from the likes of me, didn’t perform too poorly on defense last year. However, one must call into question the caliber of opponent as well. Stanford, Duke, and Air Force are hardly formidable foes, and UCLA and Purdue had nobody fearing them most of the year (we won’t get into the media overhyping of BC). They will take a small step forward this year, unless Jon Tenuta works some magic.

Special Teams:
Geoff Price returns as the punter. He got tons of practice last year (though Eric Maust also got 21 kicks in). Brandon Walker is the returning placekicker. He didn’t have many attempts last year, and he was less than solid on them.

Statistics:

Notre Dame Kicking 2007
Name	FGM	Att	%	Long	XPM	Att	%
Brandon Walker	6	12	50.00	48	22	23	95.65

Notre Dame Punting 2007
Name	Punts	Yds	Avg
Geoff Price	54	2260	41.85

Analysis:
Kicking certainly isn’t a strong point for the Irish, and Walker had better improve or they are in trouble. Price is a good-not-great punter, despite all the practice he got last year (ZING!).

Overall Analysis:
The defense of Notre Dame shouldn’t be significantly different from last year. I expect their pass defense to improve slightly, and their rush defense to decline slightly. It is on offense where they need to make huge strides. If the line can be anything other than terrible, and Clausen is healthy, the Irish should be far less pitiful in 2008. They won’t be as good as they were with Brady Quinn, but there is no way they repeat last years nightmare.

Posted under Analysis

Miami Offense:
QBs:
Last year’s starter, Mike Kokal, was pulled periodically throughout the year, before he was lost for the season with an injury. He was replaced by this year’s starter, Daniel Radabough. Radabough, who will be a redshirt junior this fall, while he wasn’t the better QB, he wasn’t a huge dropoff either, after working through a rough start. Radabough is an effective passer, but is not considered a mobile threat. Backing him up will be redshirt freshman Clay Belton. Belton has very good size, and is a better runner than Radabough. He may be able to overtake Radabough as the starter at some point during the year. Statistics:

Miami Quarterbacks Passing 2007
Name	Comp	Att	%	Yds	TD	Int	Yds/Att
Daniel Radabough	209	382	54.71	2431	12	12	6.36
Mike Kokal	55	99	55.56	615	7	1	6.21

Utah Quarterbacks Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
Mike Kokal	38	64	0	1.68
Daniel Radabough	38	27	0	0.71

Analysis:
Neither Radabough nor Belton is a game-changer, though Belton may be able to bring more to the RedHawk offense than his counterpart. He is inexperienced, but his mobility (and ability to throw on the run) can give him an edge. However, he’ll have to become a more complete thrower in order to replace Radabough. RBs:
Last year, Miami’s stable of running backs was plagued by injuries, and most of their leading rushers have graduated. Cory Jones, Austin Sykes, and Brandon Murphy (the top 3) are gone, leaving #4 and #5, Sophomore Thomas Merriweather and redshirt sophomore Jamel Miller. They will split the load (Merriweather being the starter), with redshirt junior Andre Bratton serving as the backup. Freshman Dan Green will be expected to get a few carries. Statistics:

Miami Running Backs Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
Cory Jones	107	483	2	4.51
Austin Sykes	109	466	3	4.28
Brandon Murphy	31	201	2	6.48
Thomas Merriweather	40	143	4	3.58
Jamel Miller	22	95	1	4.32
Andre Bratton	17	72	1	4.24
T.J. Latti more	13	36	0	2.77

Miami Running Backs Receiving 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Rec
Cory Jones	14	115	1	8.21
Austin Sykes	13	88	0	6.77
Brandon Murphy	2	15	0	7.50
Andre Bratton	1	8	0	8.00
Jamel Miller	1	3	0	3.00
TJ Lattimore	1	0	0	0.00

Analysis:
Most of Miami’s backs are cut from the same mold: pretty short, pretty light, and not fast enough to make up for their deficiencies in the other areas. They aren’t game-changers by any stretch of the imagination, and Michigan’s linebackers should be able to gobble them up. This is especially true with the complete lack of depth they return. Receivers:
The starters will be Dustin Woods (junior and returning starter), and Eugene Harris and Armand Robinson (sophomores). This is a very young group, but Harris and Robinson both got quite a bit of experience last year, as did fellow sophomore Chris Givens. Woods missed a couple of games, but still managed to be the team’s leading receiver. As is often the case with lesser-tier teams, they are shorter, but speedy. Woods is hailed as the team’s fastest player, and Givens brings the size at 6-2. Miami has tons of underclassmen WRs returning. Senior Tom Crabtree is the starting tight end, with experienced Jake O’Connell the key backup. They split starts last year, with Crabtree getting more. The two had 29 catches between them last year, and the tight end is not a huge part of the Miami offense. Statistics:
10

Miami Receivers 2007
Name	Rec	Yds	TD	Yds/Rec
Dustin Woods	40	603	1	15.08
Eugene Harris	46	542	2	11.78
Armand Robinson	33	471	3	14.27
Chris Givens	25	430	2	17.20
Jamal Rogers	19	173	1	9.11
Jake O’Connell (TE)	14	152	2	10.86
Tom Crabtree (TE)	15	139	1	9.27
Sean McVay	18	108	0	6.00
Jared Elliott	9	105	0	11.67
Donovan Potter	81	0	8.10
Pat Shepard (TE)	2	8	0	4.00
Pat LaMonica	1	5	0	5.00

Miami Receivers Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
Jamal Rogers	10	75	0	7.50
Eugene Harris	9	26	1	2.89
Sean McVay	3	23	0	7.67
Dustin Woods	1	5	0	5.00

Analysis:
Much like Utah, I don’t expect the short speedy receiver type to be a huge problem for Michigan’s defensive secondary. The top two corners are both 6-0+, and there is plenty of speed available there. Miami returns a lot of experience, despite their youth. This should be a solid, if unexceptional, group. Offensive Line:
The RedHawks return 3 starters from 2007’s offensive line. Steve Sutter moves from right tackle to protecting the QB’s blindside, giving Miami a strong left side along with returning LG and fellow senior Dave DiFranco. Last year’s starting right guard, Josh Satterthwait is also expected to make a move, to center. This means that all three of Miami’s seniors and returning starters are on the left side. Redshirt sophomore Bob gulley got some experience last year, and is expected to start at right guard. At right tackle will be massive Zachary S. Marshall, who transferred from Maryland after redshirting in 2005. He will be a redshirt junior (and probably move over to the left side for the 2009 season). Analysis:
The offensive line will have to excel to pave the way for new running backs. The left side should be solid in run blocking, and with the three experienced players on that side I expect much of Miami’s running to go to that side. In pass protection, they may struggle a bit, but if Belton is able to win the starting job, his mobility will help the O-line. I wonder if there will be continuity problems with two of the three returning starters at new positions.

Offensive Analysis:
With a new set of running backs, as well as a (somewhat) new QB, it will be interesting to see if Miami can get the ball into playmakers’ hands on the outside. The Michigan defense should be able to beat on the RedHawks solely based on their superior talent. Miami Defense:
Defensive Line:
Defensive ends Joe Coniglio and Travis Craven were #1 and #3 on the team in sacks last year. Coniglio, a senior and former running back, was third team All-MAC. Craven, who will be a junior this fall, was a defensive tackle last year, who is now moving to his more natural defensive end position. He is a big player at DE, and is likely to be more of a run-stuffer than a sackmaster (he had 3 sackas last year). At the tackle positions, They have junior Martin Channels back, after starting 5 games last year. He is short and big, at over 330 pounds. Sean Redwine is projected to start next to him. The sophomore is built more like a big DE than a true DT. He will try to get penetration in the passing game, and make stops in the backfield against the run. The depth is provided by junior Mark Paun and sophomore Morris Council. Both played spot roles last year. Statistics:

Miami Defensive Line 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sacks
Joe Coniglio	40	10.5	6.5
Craig Mester	23	3.5	2
Martin Channels	22	5.5	2
Jordan Stevens	22	3.5	2
Travis Craven	21	4.5	3.5
Alex Stewart	21	2	1
Sean Redwine	21	1.5	1
Ben Huddle	14	2	0
Morris Council	10	3.5	2
DJ Svabik	5	0	0
Nick DeBartolo	5	0	0
Mark Paun	3	0	0

Analysis:
Miami has a big defensive line, especially for a lesser-conference school. The defensive ends don’t appear to be quick against the run, and only DT Sean Redwine appears to be particularly speedy for his position. This defensive line appears to be geared to stop a power run game, with a little pressure on the pass game. They didn’t have a lot of tackles as a unit last year (and their rotation was smaller than one might expect). Linebackers:
The linebacking corps is by far the strength of the Miami defense. They return all three starters, and the three led the team in tackles last year. Caleb Bostic, the least heralded of the three, returns on the strong side. Clayton Mullins, the defending conference defensive player of the year, roams the weakside. Joey Hudson is the man in the middle, and he had the least tackles of the three last year. Despite that, he was 2nd team all-conference. Hudson’s backup, Chris Shula, is also a senior, and the outside spots are backed up by true sophomores. Statistics:

Miami Linebackers 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sack	Int
Clayton Mullins	143	13.5	4	0
Caleb Bostic	102	11	1	1
Joey Hudson	99	8	2	2
Chris Shula	54	4	2	0
Ryan Kennedy	9	1	1	0
Ben Bennett	9	1	0	0
Mickey Mann	4	0	0	0

Analysis:
With three returning starters, this is by far the strong point of the D. If the defensive line can keep blockers off, they should be able to make a lot of plays for the RedHawks. All have very good size to handle things on the interior. However, I wonder if that size is a blessing and a curse, leaving them vulnerable to the outside run. Mullins is almost 250 pounds on the weakside. If the quickness is there, they will be very good against the run. Still, I will question how well big linebackers can drop into coverage or man up on TEs. Also, with three returning starters (and little depth behind them) an injury could be devestating to the LB corps. Defensive Backs:
The safeties for Miami are very experienced. Senior Robbie Wilson and junior Jordan Gafford both started every game last year. They ranked directly behind the three linebackers in terms of total tackles, but didn’t seem to be big playmakers in terms of picking the ball off or breaking up a ton of passes. Their backups are both sophomores who got very little playing time last year. The corners are both juniors. Jeff Thompson makes it 3/3 for returning DBs who started every game last year. He is short at 5-10, but has good mass to make up for it. At the lower level, however, that will always make you question a guy’s speed. He only broke up 3 passes all of last year. On the other side is new starter Wendell Brunson. The junior was the primary backup last year. Statistics:

Miami Defensive Backs 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sack	Int
Jordan Gafford	89	2	0	1
Robbie Wilson	75	1	0	1
Jerrid Gaines	43	2.5	0	2
Jeff Thompson	41	2	1	3
Wendell Brunson	18	0	0	1
Peris Edwards	17	0	0	0
Brandon Stephens	14	3.5	0	0
Brian Palazcak	10	0	0	0
DeAndre Gilmore	7	1	1	0
Bryan Roland	1	0	0	0

Analysis:
With a lot of experience in the secondary, Miami will be the second straight team Michigan faces that should be strong against the pass. However, their returners were solid, not spectaular last year, so it will be interesting to see if they make a leap to better production and playmaking. Going over the middle will be tough with a pair of good safeties, but I wonder if their corners have the quickness to cover the outside, especially with an effective screen game.

Defensive Analysis:
The Michigan run game will require a lot of quickness over brute strength to really take it to Miami. The passing game should be more successful if they are able to avoid the safeties. With the RedHawks using a lot of man coverage, expect to see mismatches used on screens to exploit the weaknesses in depth. Special Teams:
Jacob Richardson is the returning starter at punter. He is entering his fourth year as the starter. He missed spring with an injury to his kicking leg. Fellow senior Nathan Parseghian (who is the great grandnephew of former RedHawk Ara) is the returning kicker. He had Gingell-ian struggles last year, connecting on only 13 of his 20 FG attempts. Statistics:

Miami Kicking 2007
Name	FGM	Att	%	Long	XPM	Att	%
Nate Parseghian	13	20	65.00	51	18	18	100.00

Miami Punting 2007
Name	Punts	Yds	Avg
Jacob Richardson	68	3063	45.04

Analysis:
It doesn’t appear as though the Miami special teams with be something to fear, though the punting looks to be stronger than the kicking. If Parseghian can improve, Miami’s special teams should be solid enough to get by. Overall Analysis:
Miami, a year after reaching the MAC championship game, is expected to finish second in the eastern division. They shouldn’t be as strong a team as any others (except maybe Toledo) on Michigan’s schedule. After the Utah game, this should be another opportunity to fine-tune the offense before Notre Dame, and hopefully develop the defense into a dominating unit.]] >

Posted under Analysis

Utah Offense:
QBs
Brian Johnson is the presumptive starter. He backed up Alex Smith as a true freshman, and was second-team all-MWC as a sophomore starter. He tore his ACL towards the end of the year, and sat out 2006 recovering from surgery. Last year, he injured his shoulder early in the season, but was able to return, leading the team to wins in 8 of their final 9 games. He will be backed up by sophomore Corbin Louks, who played a limited role last year, primarily on designed QB runs. He attempted few passes in his playing time. Third-stringer Chad Manis will be a redshirt freshman this fall.

Statistics:

Utah Quarterbacks Passing 2007
Name	Comp	Att	%	Yds	TD	Int	Yds/Att
Brian Johnson	181	272	66.54	1847	11	10	6.79
Tommy Grady	58	115	50.40	681	4	3	5.92
Corbin Louks	5	8	67.5	41	2	0	5.125

Utah Quarterbacks Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
Brian Johnson	85	150	2	1.76
Tommy Grady	12	-28	0	-2.33
Corbin Louks	33	162	1	4.9

Analysis:
Johnson has had health issues his entire career, but since it’s the first game of the year, his health shouldn’t be an issue (unless he gets hurt during the game, of course). Over his career, he has averaged 7.83 yards per passing attempt, but it was more than a yard worse last year, at 6.79. That could be a function of his being injured, however. Running the ball, Johnson has averaged 2.97 yards per attempt, though he is well below 2 since the knee injury. He came on strong towards the end of last year, however, with the final three games accounting for all but one of the times he rushed for more than 20 yards (including 69 in the bowl victory over Navy.

RBs
Last year’s leading rusher Darrel Mack returns, as does JC transfer Matt Asiata, who was expected to start last year, but broke his leg in the Utes’ opening game against Oregon State. Mack will be a true senior, and Asiata has redshirt junior eligibility. The two will battle for starting nod, with Ray Stowers likely remaining in a backup role. Stowers is a fifth-year senior who lost his first two seasons to injury. He was the team’s second-leading rusher last year. Providing depth are sophomore Eddie Wide and walkon Trevor Moss. Bennie Joppru’s little brother, Chris, rarely plays but is on the team as well.

Statistics:

Utah Running Backs Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
Darrell Mack	253	1204	12	4.76
Ray Stowers	47	261	2	5.55
Eddie Wide	19	44	0	2.32
Darryl Poston	12	37	0	3.08
Matt Asiata	4	16	0	4.00
Trevor Moss	1	8	0	8.00

Utah Running Backs Receiving 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
Darrell Mack	21	144	3	6.86
Ray Stowers	2	22	1	11.00
Darryl Poston	1	17	0	17.00

Analysis:
None of the Ute running backs are particularly tall, but all of them have a good amount of mass. All of the top three weigh more than 220 lbs, with Asiata (also the shortest of the backs at 5-11), tipping the scales at 230. With measurables like this, they would seem to be inside runners, but with Utah’s spread-out attack, they are likely to be given room to operate in space as well. Utah has lots of depth at the RB position, and though there isn’t All-American quality at the top, there is little dropoff among the top few guys. Keep in mind that Utah also likes to get touches in the running game for non-RBs as well, through screens, trick plays, and options.

Receivers:
The Utes’ starting receivers are going to be Marquis Wilson, Bradon Godfrey, and Brent Casteel, all seniors (Wilson true, the other two redshirt). Wilson is expected to be suspended for at least the first game of the year. Godfrey brings size to the group, as he is a 6-3 white guy who transferred from Southern Utah after his freshman year. Casteel and Wilson are both speedy short guys, neither cracking the 6-foot mark. Casteel was Utah’s best threat in 2006, but he missed most of last year with a knee injury. Last year’s top two guys (after the Casteel injury) both graduated, but Utah has been able to replace them with more seniors. Backups Freddie Brown and John Peel are seniors, there is a junior in Elijah Wesson, a sophomore in Jereme Brooks, and a couple of JC transfers in Aiona Key and David Reed will provide depth, and likely contribute. At tight end, Colt Sampson, who was injured at the beginning of last year, will start, while former running back Zac Eldridge and JC transfer Dudley LaPorte will battle for playing time.

Statistics:

Utah Receivers 2007
Name	Rec	Yds	TD	Yds/Rec
Derrek Richards	57	635	3	11.14
Bradon Godfrey	50	524	3	10.48
Brian Hernandez	39	385	1	9.87
Marquis Wilson	18	285	3	15.83
Freddie Brown	20	219	0	10.95
Jereme Brooks	15	183	2	12.20
Brent Casteel	7	64	1	9.14
Mike Hicken	1	19	0	19.00
Colt Sampson (TE)	2	15	0	7.50

Utah Receivers Rushing 2007
Name	Att	Yds	TD	Yds/Att
Jereme Brooks	21	129	3	6.14
Marquis Wilson	17	91	0	5.35
Bradon Godfrey	1	5	0	5.00
Derrek Richards	2	4	0	2.00
Freddie Brown	1	-5	0	-5.00
Brent Casteel	3	-13	0	4.33

Analysis:
Apart from Godfrey, Utah’s key receivers are the speedy little bastard-type that have given Michigan fans nightmares in the recent past. However, don’t be surprised if the new Michigan regime is far more capable of handling them. Tight end is a weak point for this Utes team, unless someone performs beyond expectations. Expect this version of the spread to use the TE sparingly. Most of Utah’s receiving corps is long on experience, with several seniors in the two-deep. Casteel will be used both as a receiver and a designated trick-play guy. The (presumed) loss of Wilson will be a big hit for Utah.

Line:
Both of Utah’s starting tackles return from last year, with senior Dustin Hensel and junior Zane Beadles both entering their second year as the lead tackles. Beadles had been expected to start at guard, but he moved from the position at which he started almost every game as a redshirt freshman in order to fill for an injured player. With no tackles waiting in the wings, Beadles will probably stay at his new position. At center, Tyler Williams and Zane Taylor will battle for the starting position. Williams has a year of experience on Taylor, and is slightly stronger. Right guard Robert Conley returns to improve on his second-team all-conference performance from last year. He has been starting at the position since the end of his redshirt freshman year. Left guard Caleb Schlauderaff started the final 10 games last year, and will return at the position for his redshirt sophomore year.

Analysis:
With four returning starters, three of them seniors, the Utah offensive line is poised to be a strong point in the 2008 team. With a more experienced unit and quarterback Brian Johnson expected to be healthier this year, expect sacks to go down and rush yards per attempt to go up. If the winner of the starting center position doesn’t have problems making line calls or snapping in the shotgun, this should be among the best OLs Michigan will face all year.

Offensive Analysis:
This is certainly an experienced unit. 8 of the 11 starters are seniors, and nearly all of them have extensive game experience (including non-senior LG Caleb Schlauderaff). The tight end position shouldn’t be too key to this Utah offense, so as long as the center situation works out positively for the Utes, the offense should be very powerful. Injuries have plagued some offensive players for Utah in the past, but this is unlikely to be a major issue in the first game of the season.

Utah Defense:
Defensive Line:
Utah loses two all-conference performers in 1st-teamer DE Martail Burnett and 2nd-teamer DT Gabe Long. The two led last year’s team in sacks, with 7 and 4, respectively. Junior Koa Misi, who was a starter at defensive tackle last year, will slide outside to take over Burnett’s starting defensive end spot. End is Misi’s natural spot, so don’t expect him to be an oversized run-stuffer. Manning the other end spot will be returning starter Paul Kruger. Kruger is a redshirt sophomore who is as old as most redshirt seniors, taking an LDS mission after his first year at Utah. Backing up the defensive ends are senior Greg Newman, a former Colorado Buffalo, and several freshmen, including Derrick Shelby, who is most likely to get significant playing time. At defensive tackle, Utah must replace both positions, with Long’s graduation and Misi’s position change. Sophomore Lei Talamaivao is expected to start at one of the spots, after filling in last year as a true freshman. Kenape Eliapo will start at the other position. The redshirt junior has gained significant playing time as a backup in the past two seasons. Depth is a major issue for the Utes at DT, with very few backups available. Utah will likely have to play some true freshmen in backup roles.

Statistics:

Utah Defensive Line 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sacks	FumRec
Koa Misi	67	8	2.5	1
Paul Kruger	63	7.5	3	0
Martail Burnett	50	15	7	0
Gabe Long	40	6.5	4	0
Kenape Eliapo	29	2.5	1	0
Lei Talamaivao	14	2.5	0	0
Nai Fotu	11	3.5	2.5	0
Greg Newman	12	2	1	1
Aaron Tonga	5	0	0	0
Casey Sutera	4	1.5	0	0
Neil A’asa	3	0	0	0
Alex Puccinelli	2	1	1	0
Zeke Tuinei-Wily	1	0	0	0
Ryan Taylor	1	0	0	0

Notes: Burnett and Kruger also logged an interception each. Fotu is expected to move to LB this season.

Analysis:
Utah’s defensive tackles are clearly a weak point of the team. The ends should be solid, with Kruger a redshirt sophomore who is the same age as most 5th-year players, and Misi presumably excelling in a move to his more natural position. It seems as though the inside run will be able to capitalize on a vulnerability in the Utah defense.

Linebackers:
Utah must replace linebackers at two positions, losing MLB Joe Jiannoni, and their top two SLBs in Kyle Brady and Malakai Mokofisi. Returning weakside backer (known as “rover” in the hybrid 4-3/4-2-5 defense) Stevenson Sylvester was the second-leading tackler last year, in addition to having the third most sacks on the team (3 unassisted). The true junior is a speedy linebacker or a big safety, with measurables somewhere between the two positions. Nai Fotu will be the starter at SLB, after playing in every game last year as a true freshman. He was a DE to start the year, but moved to linebacker “where a special package was created for him,” according to the Utah press guide. Mike Wright will be the starter at MLB. Wright is a true junior (though according to his bio he also played a year at Southern Utah, which I believe would take away a year of eligibility, making him a senior. Anyone with additional insight is welcome to chime in), who has played special teams in the past couple years, while occasionally filling in at MLB in 2007.

Statistics:

Utah Linebackers 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sack	Int
Stevenson Sylvester	86	10	3	0
Joe Jiannoni	53	1	0	1
Kyle Brady	39	2	0	0
Mike Wright	22	4.5	3	0
Malakai Mokofisi	22	.5	0	0
Kepa Gaison	13	2	1	0
Jamel King	11	0	0	0
Loma Olevao	7	.5	0	0
Justin Taplin-Ross	5	0	0	0

Analysis:
With Nai Fotu starting at LB less than a year after starting his career as a defensive end, it is natural to question whether he will have the quickness required to slow down Michigan’s option attack. Sylvester should have no problem chasing down Steve Threet, but I wonder whether he can track down Carlos Brown (or Sam McGuffie) in space, or if he has the power to drag down Kevin Grady. Wright performed well in backup duty last year, and he should fill the MLB spot well, if not exceptionally.

Defensive Backs:
Let’s start at the corners, where Utah has two returning starters. Senior Brice McCain has started since his true sophomore year, and was a second-team all-conference performer last year. He is Utah’s fastest player, though he gives up quite a bit in size at only 5-9. At the other corner spot, junior Sean Smith makes up for McCain’s lack of size, at a towering 6-3. He started his career at running back and wide receiver, but last year played exclusively defense, starting at both corner and nickel. Junior RJ Stanford will start at nickel and provide depth at corner. Junior Justin Jones is also a backup corner. To this point, he has mostly special teams experience. At the safety spots, Robert Johnson returns at the free safety position. He was injured last year, but still managed to garner honorable mention all-conference. He is a junior who played junior college ball as a freshman, where he was named an All-American. Joe Dale, a true junior who was the defensive MVP of the Poinsettia Bowl, will take over at the strong safety position. Deshawn Richard will be the primary backup at free safety, with RJ Rice the second-stringer at SS. Both players are seniors.

Statistics:

Utah Defensive Backs 2007
Name	Tackle	TFL	Sack	Int
Steve Tate	86	10.5	2	3
Robert Johnson	44	.5	0	3
Joe Dale	40	2.5	0	1
R.J. Stanford	33	2	2	0
Brice McCain	28	0	0	1
Terrell Cole	25	2	2	0
R.J. Rice	22	2	0	1
Sean Smith	17	1	0	4
Justin Jones	6	0	0	1
Deshawn Richard	6	0	0	0
Elijah Wesson	7	0	0	0
Clint Mower	6	0	0	0

Analysis:
Utah’s corners are experienced, though perhaps lacking in ideal measurables. Robert Johnson brings experience to the s
afety position, and Joe Dale is an up-and-comer at the other spot. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sean Smith, the taller corner, was matched up with Greg Mathews, while the speedier Brice McCain takes on shorter receivers. If Toney Clemons and Hemingway start, Michigan will have a distinct height advantage over the Utah secondary. If Steve Threet is accurate enough, Michigan could capitalize on this. It also doesn’t appear that there is tons of depth at DB. With Michigan likely to trot out 3-5 receivers on nearly every down, it will be interesting what Utah does to compensate.

Defensive Analysis:
With a very experienced offense, Utah’s defense has to be considered the weak link. D-line and linebacker are the weakest spots, and I think this bodes well for Michigan’s run game. With defensive ends who are inexperienced (Kruger) or switching from DT (Misi), they may not have the disciplined play required to stop the read-option. With a starting linebacker who has moved from DE, there may be mismatches in the run game there as well. The secondary appears to be the strong point of the Utah defensive unit, returning several key players from last year’s #1 pass efficiency D. However, they will likely be giving up size to Michigan, and it remains to be seen if their depth is strong enough to combat a Michigan team that will have some of the best (and widest variety of) WRs they see all year.

Special Teams:
Senior Louie Sakoda handles both punting and kicking. He was the conference special teamer of the year in 2007. Bradon Godfrey is the holder on field goals.

Statistics:

Utah Kicking 2007
Name	FGM	Att	%	Long	XPM	Att	%
Louie Sakoda	19	22	86.36	51	38	40	95.00

Utah Punting 2007
Name	Punts	Yds	Avg
Louie Sakoda	73	3231	44.26

Analysis:
Kicking certainly isn’t a weak point for the Utes, and Sakoda may be a candidate for the Ray Guy award as the nation’s top punter. A wide receiver holding on field goals always provides opportunities for fakes. Sakoda also had 2 passes and 2 runs on fakes last year.

Overall Analysis:
The Utes are regarded as one of the strongest non-BCS teams in 2008, who may be able to run the table if they can get by Michigan. They are also favored to win the Mountain West Conference. If the Wolverines plan to succeed against Utah, the offense will have to gel fast. Utah has a very experienced offense, and they should be stronger than last year with Brian Johnson healthy. The Michigan defense should be fairly good, but Utah will definitely get its share. The encouraging fact is that strong defensive teams tend to do better than strong offensive teams, especially at a higher level. Michigan will have to be able to take advantage of Utah’s defensive weaknesses in the run game if they want to come out of the season opener alive.

Posted under Analysis

Clothes!

For those who haven’t seen it yet, the alleged away jersey has been revealed on an internet. The picture comes from the Women’s Football Academy held in Ann Arbor by the coaching staff. From the looks of it, however, I would say this looks like a practice jersey (cheap numbers, instead of the sewn-on type, and the material looks cheaper than one would expect). I guess we won’t know for sure until Notre Dame, unless there is an official unveiling of sorts.
The student t-shirts are also available at the MDen now. We unveiled the design here back in the spring. Again, I’m not enamored with the shirt, and I think “Schedule as shirt design” is a horrible, horrible idea. The AD needs to go back to having people with a clue design the shirts.

Posted under Analysis

The posting as currently scheduled (recruiting Mondays, Fridays, and when there are commits; Big Ten recruiting rankings Saturdays) will continue, along with the various other posts that appear throughout the week.

However, in addition, I’ll be rolling out team previews for this season starting next week. I’ll run from Utah to Ohio State, then cover the two Big Ten teams Michigan doesn’t play this year.

Get stoked.

Also, check the new banner.

Posted under Analysis, Blog News

State of” in the sense that Michigan is a state, and in the sense of a condition of being. Part 5: Discussion on reader feedback and questions.

Part 1:
My first assertion, that fans in the state of Michigan are not all fans of the Wolverines, was not disputed:

I’d say Tim is correct. OSU is the only game in football crazy Ohio while Michigan is divided. M could dominate the state but has only done so in SE Michigan. MSWho has been dominate in Saginaw/Flint. But the rest of the state….

Southwest Michigan’s population has Chicago team and Notre Dame fans. Further, you cannot discount the in state MAC teams. Many of my relatives in SW Michigan are Western fans before they are M or MSWho fans. My niece attends Central and knows all about the Chips, but little about Wolverines!

– Wolverine 98284

I agree with Wolverine 98284, but would like to mention that he is perhaps overstating the SW Michigan ties to non-Big 2 schools. In Grand Rapids (where I live, and which could be considered SW Michigan), people are indeed fans of MAC schools, but Michigan and MSU have strong influence as well, along with Notre Dame. I disagree that many SW Michigan residents are Chicago team fans, however. Tigers, Lions, Red Wings, and Pistons are the overwhelming favorite almost throughout the state.

The comparison to Ohio was not a topic of debate, either:

I grew up in Ann Arbor and now live in Cincinnati. Tim is 100% correct about the Buckeyes, it’s the only game in town when it comes to college sports. OSU is even bigger then UC in Cincinnati. Ohio recruits have one choice where to play football and that’s at OSU.

– Bob

Pretty much everyone was in agreement that Ohio is a state united (behind the Buckeyes), whereas Michigan’s loyalties are spread amongst 2-3 (I didn’t account for Notre Dame in the original post, but I think it is definitely something that needs to be accounted for (i.e. eliminated from the face of the earth)).

However, some people didn’t quite see the connection between having 2 “main” schools in the state, and the Wolverines losing recruits to out-of-state schools:

I feel your argument on why Michigan recruits go to other schools (MSU/USC/otherwise) was not fully developed. Are you arguing its because they lack a central allegiance to one school? I could see this as a strong reason to support losing kids to MSU, but I feel its a rather weak argument in regards to USC/out-of-state opposition.

– kowisja

While the split loyalty does indeed mean that the Wolverines will lose some recruits to MSU, I still believe that it does help out-of-state schools with Michigan prospects as well. If a player is a lifelong fan of Michigan, then Michigan has a distinct advantage in his recruitment. However, with a state divided, he is more likely to be a casual fan of the Wolverines (or even a fan of Michigan State). When it comes time to make his decision, Michigan doesn’t have the advantage that they would have had if the Wolverines were the overwhelming choice of the entire state (see: Ohio State), and both instate schools start without as significant an advantage as a single instate school would have had. In addition, if he grew up a State fan, but wants to go to a good school/program, he might choose to go out of state, so as to not have to play for the rival of his favored Spartans.

There were also a few other explanations offered by people:

We have definitely pushed harder to get the recruits from out of state. I don’t quite have the desire to research this, but I’m interested to see how many instate recruits of high ranking and in positions Michigan needs have bolted to schools outside of UM/MSU.

– kowisja

1. Recent Coaches/Success
2. It’s warmer in other places. Hi USC, Florida, LSU.
3. Visibility/Draftability.
4. I hesitate to mention this, but based on various reports: Shadiness. OJ Mayo, Reggie Bush, Maurice Clarett, Troy Smith.

– Dave

I think kowisja’s point isn’t necessarily true, especially regarding a player that he cites as an example, Nick Perry. I don’t believe that the staff missed on Nick Perry because they were focused on out-of-state guys. On the contrary, I think they really wanted him and simply whiffed (note: I think this happened before the new staff was in the picture), mostly because they had taken him for granted. As far as the first part of kowisja’s post, I might go through and do a bit of research about instate prospects who went places other than Michigan or OSU sometime soon.

As far as Dave’s points, I hesitate to ever call #4 into play, mostly because I think it’s more of an excuse than an explanation, but it may be relevant. The first two definitely play something of a role. I think #3 is a nearly-direct result of #1, and if Michigan started winning more, the recruiting rankings, both in- and out-of-state, would improve.

On to Part 2:
Some people tried to help come up with reasons that Michigan produces so much less D-I talent (especially high D-I talent) than Ohio.

Several of our football players stopped playing football to concentrate on soccer, baseball, and particularly hockey, which played a prominant role in our town’s fandom. Are other sports as big of a deal in Ohio? I don’t know about others, but I can’t imagine hockey being as prominant.

– footymcgavin

I originally thought that this would be a significant factor. Obviously Michigan produces more hockey players, but I thought maybe there was something to Michigan’s reputation as a “basketball state” compared to Ohio’s pedigree as a “football state.” However, while Ohio does indeed produce way more football talent, the two states are about even in terms of producing basketball players. With no easy way of checking for soccer and baseball prospects, this is an issue that likely can’t be resolved statistically.

Even still, if such a difference between the two states exists, there must be some explanation why Michigan’s athletes are moving away from football whereas Ohioans stick to the gridiron.

And finally, Part 4:

Most people agreed with the rules that I would change for the MHSAA:
The all star game rule is the dumbest…i remember grady wasn’t able to play in one because of that.

– RJHOVE

There was also a question about coaching, too:

I’m somewhat curious how coaches salaries work in Michigan. Are they subjected (harsh word choice I know) to normal teaching salaries by the Teacher’s Unions, or can they make more money? The football coach at my high school was making more than everyone minus the superintendent for the entire district. Granted our coaching staff was comprised of probably 24 coaches covering 6 football teams (Varsity, JV/A, JV/B, Freshmen A,B,&C). There were at least 2 coaches (HC and OC) that didn’t teach any classes other than Football period. I highly doubt Michigan’s teacher’s union would have the same allowances.

Makes me wonder then how many of the best coaches stay in Michigan, not just the recruits.

– formerlyanonymous

Good points here. However, I’m not sure too many people go into high school coaching as a career, leaving the state for a higher salary. If coaches were moving up to the college ranks, it might make sense, but a great HS coach leaving the state of Michigan for a HS coaching gig in, say, Texas, doesn’t seem to ring true.

On the other hand, it may be the case that some high schools in Texas are able to pay competitive enough salaries to prevent coaches from making a jump to small-college coaching. This would certainly go a long way to keeping good coaches at the high school level within the state
.

Thanks for the great dialog, everyone. If you have anything else you’d like to contribute, I’m all ears.

Posted under Analysis

“State of” in the sense that Michigan is a state, and in the sense of a condition of being. Part 4: How can the high school game be improved?

Keep Funding, Baby
Nothing will flourish if it isn’t given the proper resources, and if you throw enough money into something, it can often succeed despite its best efforts not to (except the Yankees – ZING!). Those who can should continue supporting the football programs around the state, especially those that aren’t in position to help themselves. More funding leads to better equipment and coaching, which inevitably leads to better quality athletes coming out.

Abolish Bad MHSAA Rules
This is one area that really holds the state’s football talent back. There are three specific MHSAA rules that I think are crap, and should be eliminated.

1. MHSAA schools are not allowed to travel more than 300 miles for a game, nor are their opponents (there are some nuances, such as they can play anywhere in an adjacent state). This is apparently designed to prevent money from being thrown away for mere high school football games, and to relieve potential stress on high school athletes due to traveling. However, it prevents Michigan teams from playing the best teams in the country (unless they are from Ohio, Indiana, or Wisconsin), decreasing the exposure of the high school game in the state. A Herbstreit Challenge-esque event is out of the question, since it would be against this rule for Michigan teams to play anyone from Texas, California, Florida, etc.
2. No spring practice. The intent behind this rule is either to allow kids to play other spring sports without the possibility of discipline from their football coaches, or to prevent them from playing sports year-round and wearing out their bodies. The second rationale is crap, because most football players play at least one other sport, and often two. While there is something to be gained by wide receivers and running backs participating in track (for example), not allowing spring football discourages athletes from trying to excel in this sport. In most other states (especially those that take high school football seriously, such as Ohio and Texas), spring football is a way of life.
3. All-star participation forfeits eligibility. Current MHSAA rules state that any athlete participating in an all-star competition (such as the Army All-American Bowl or the ESPNU Under Armour Game) is ineligible for high school sports. This means that football players must make a choice between participating in an all-star contest or playing a spring (even winter, for much of basketball season falls after the new year) sport. This discourages Michigan athletes who are of a high enough caliber to participate in these contests, reducing exposure for players from the state.

More TV
This would likely take care of itself if some of the other suggestions were to come to fruition (i.e. allowing teams to play at or against Texas schools). With the death of Comcast Local, there is almost no coverage of high school sports, including football, until the state championships. This may be a chicken-and-egg argument, but with better football will come more TV, and vice versa.

Posted under Analysis

“State of” in the sense that Michigan is a state, and in the sense of a condition of being. Part 3: How can we improve the state of the state?

The University of Michigan Reigns Supreme
As the comparison to Ohio shows, perhaps states are better served by having one in-state power at the college level. While many Wolverine fans may wish that Michigan State would just go away, or drop out of the Big Ten entirely, this is never going to happen. Instead, the Wolverines must continue their dominance over the Spartans, winning over the hearts and minds of impressionable youth in the state.

The state of Michigan might not be improved by having the Spartans be a perennial cellar-dweller in the conference, but with rare victories over Michigan, and a continuance of the current run of mediocrity, Michigan State will be good enough to keep citizens interested in the sport, but not good enough to win fans over Michigan. The best-case scenario for Michigan fans would be having State win all their nonconference games each year, and dwell in the middle of the pack in the Big Ten, never beating Michigan and having bowl years about half the time.

Michigan continuing its success over MSU in other sports would also help, as well as establishing a winning tradition in basketball.

More Exposure to (Good) Football
With only the Lions representing the state in the NFL, Michigan does not have a huge presence in the professional game. Especially painful is the fact that the Lions perpetually suck. However, any football helps. If the Grand Rapids Rampage could be respectable in the Arena Football League, this would also help make Michigan more of a football state.

The state should also encourage any professional league (such as the AAFL, currently on a one-year hiatus before it has even started) to establish a franchise in the state of Michigan. This increases exposure of the game to Michigan citizens, and can also help the economy of the state.

Basketball State?
One possible reason that football does not hold the hallowed place in Michigan’s culture as the game does in Ohio, for example, is that it is not the most popular sport in the state. Basketball is probably the king of the state at nearly every level, and hockey is popular in Michigan moreso than any other state (aside from Minnesota). These sports are also aided by the fact that the professional franchises

I won’t suggest that Michigan as a whole forget about these sports, but just realize that football at least as important as each of them. If many elite prep athletes in the state didn’t forgo football to focus on basketball in the offseason, Michigan would be aided as well.

Posted under Analysis

“State of” in the sense that Michigan is a state, and in the sense of a condition of being. Part 2: Why does Michigan produce less D-I talent than Ohio?

Michigan and Ohio have been at odds throughout modern history. Beginning with the Toledo War and continuing through the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry, there has always been a certain degree of animosity between the two. While Ohio State has the recent edge in the rivalry, Michigan holds the overall record. Despite this, more Ohio-born players have won The Game than have Michigan natives. This is because the University of Michigan has to use the state of Ohio for recruiting, while the Buckeyes don’t need to return the favor to build their team.

Prove It
To illustrate the point that Ohio produces better football talent, let’s take a look at the recent Scout player rankings. While many players ranked lower than 3 stars will eventually sign with Division I schools, let’s look at the highly-ranked players. For a sample size, we’ll consider any prospect who could feasibly be on a roster in Fall 2008 (2004-2008 recruiting classes).

2008 Final Rankings
State	Scout 5* Prospects	Scout 4* Prospects	Scout 3* Prospects	Total 3 or higher	Signed by Michigan	Signed by OSU
Michigan	1	6	13	20	5	0
Ohio	3	11	33	47	7	9*
2007 Final Rankings
State	Scout 5* Prospects	Scout 4* Prospects	Scout 3* Prospects	Total 3 or higher	Signed by Michigan	Signed by OSU
Michigan	2	11	6	19	5*	1
Ohio	2	10	31	43	0	10*
2006 Final Rankings
State	Scout 5* Prospects	Scout 4* Prospects	Scout 3* Prospects	Total 3 or higher	Signed by Michigan	Signed by OSU
Michigan	1	1	8	10	4*	1*
Ohio	3	17	30	50	3*	10
2005 Final Rankings
State	Scout 5* Prospects	Scout 4* Prospects	Scout 3* Prospects	Total 3 or higher	Signed by Michigan	Signed by OSU
Michigan	1	3	12	16	6*	0
Ohio	2	13	16	31	4	11*
2004 Final Rankings
State	Scout 5* Prospects	Scout 4* Prospects	Scout 3* Prospects	Total 3 or higher	Signed by Michigan	Signed by OSU
Michigan	0	5	10	15	6	1
Ohio	2	4	27	33	1	15***

(* Indicates players that were 2-stars that are included in the signing numbers).
It is clear that Ohio produces more talent than Michigan. Over the past 5 recruiting classes, Ohio has produced 204 3-star or higher players, while Michigan has produced 80. Michigan signed 26 Michigan players (including three 2-star players) and 14 Ohio players (including a single 2-star). Ohio state has signed 3 Michigan players (including one 2-star) and a whopping 55 Ohio-bred players (including six 2-star players). It is plain to see that the state of Ohio produces far more Division I players, in addition to more UM/OSU caliber guys.

Distribution of Population?
The two states produce a significant difference of players at pretty much all levels of analysis here. While this would initially lead one to believe that it was simply a higher population in one state accounting for the difference, this is not the case.

Population Statistics
State	Population	Density
Michigan	9,938,444 (8)	179/sq mi (15)
Ohio	11,353,140 (7)	277.26/sq mi (9)

Population density may be something of a factor (are there enough people in one location in the UP to muster up an 11-man football game?), but the differences aren’t that great, especially if you eliminate the ridiculously sparse UP (32% of Michigan’s land, but 3% of its population).

Ohio doesn’t produce more football talent just because it has more people. More nefarious mechanisms are at work here.

Economics
While it is free to go around whacking people, and cheap to get a football to toss around, playing actual organized football does have some significant costs. Individuals must incur costs to join youth leagues, and buy a fairly significant amount of equipment. Schools must invest in equipment, jerseys, staff, and other expenses, which can be a financial burden that is difficult to bear.

However, is Michigan’s economy that much worse than Ohio’s? I wouldn’t presume that this is a major factor, since Ohio has been producing much more talent seemingly since the beginning
of time. Even when the auto companies in Detroit were thriving, Ohio was producing more football players.

Passion
Perhaps the reason is simply a difference between the citizens of the two states in terms of how much they care about the game. There is no way to accurately gauge this, but I honestly believe that it is the case. While there are places in Michigan where football is very important to people, it borders on religion in most of Ohio. Part of this may be the culture of Ohio State hegemony (check out part I in this series), and there are likely other factors adding to it, but no concrete explanation.

Posted under Analysis