Well, they certainly made it interesting for us, did they not?

After Terrence Oglesby was ejected, and Michigan was able to take and sustain a double-digit lead for much of the second half, it seemed like the first round was in the bag, and it was on to Oklahoma (Or Morgan State, as the case may be). However, Clemson suddenly drilled a few 3-pointers, Michigan forgot how to break the press, though they’d been doing it with relative ease all game, and this one turned into a nailbiter. I immediately went from “go for the triple-double, Manny” to “hey, just win, baby.”

Until Stu Douglass came down with that final rebound, this one wasn’t over. I still might not believe the outcome until I see the Wolverines take the court against Oklahoma on Saturday. The Michigan Wolverines, who have not been to the tourney since 1998, are in the second round. The Michigan Wolverines, who started 3 different freshmen and 2 different walkons during this year, are 1 win away from the Sweet Sixteen.

Oliver Purnell, 0-6. John Beilein, 5-1.

Queme los barcos.

Posted under Basketball

Or: Tim’s foray into tempo-free statistics.

Michigan takes on the Tigers of Clemson at 7:10 PM tonight on CBS in the first round of the NCAA tournament. The game takes place in Kansas City, Missouri at the Sprint Center.

Tempo-Free and efficiency comparison (if you need an explanation of what any of these things mean, head to KenPom’s website):

Michigan v. Clemson: National Ranks
Category	Michigan	Clemson	Advantage
Mich eFG% v. Clemson eFG% D	114	129	M
Mich eFG% D v. Clemson eFG%	173	33	CC
Mich TO% v. Clemson Def TO%	16	16	–
Mich Def TO% v. Clemson TO%	130	154	M
Mich OReb% v. Clemson DReb%	290	302	M
Mich DReb% v. Clemson OReb%	188	22	CC
Mich FTR v. MSU Clemson FTR	329	82	CCC
Mich Opp FTR v. Clemson FTR	28	289	MMM
Mich AdjO v. Clemson AdjD	42	52	M
Mich AdjD v. Clemson AdjO	67	11	C

Differences of more than 100 places in the rankings garner two-letter advantages, differences of more than 200 get a third.

Clemson is favored by just about every imaginable source handicapping the odds of the game, so there must be a little more to these teams than a fly-by tempo free analysis. Michigan leads 5-4 in terms of categories with an advantage, though the Tigers have more total letters, with multiple-letter advantages in 3 categories. Michigan’s effective field goal percentage is going to be important in this game, so the Wolverines hope to shoot more like they did against Iowa than they did against, say, Illinois. Michigan’s ability to hold onto the rock (about which more in a second) should also play a big role in this game, and both teams are stellar on their end of the deal in that regard. KenPom predicts a 74-69 Clemson win in a 66-possession game.

The Tigers are a good matchup for Michgian in one key way: they aren’t very big. Whereas Michigan has struggled going against tall teams like Illinois and Michigan State, the Tigers start a 6-9 center (the same height as DeShawn Sims), and won’t be significantly bigger than Michigan at any position other than the 4, where Zack Novak will have to keep Trevor Booker, the leading rebounder for Clemson, off the boards. Outside of the starters, only one player (Junior wing David Potter) gets truly significant playing time, so the Tigers aren’t partilcularly deep, either. How have the tigers found most of their success this year? Forcing the opponents into turnovers using a 1-2-1-1 full-court press on defense. Michigan will need to be able to hang onto the ball against that pressure, leading some to speculate Kelvin Grady might see more playing time than we’ve become accustomed to of late.

Clemson is certainly a better team than Michigan, and they had more success in a better conference. However, John Beilein and Oliver Purnell have built up reputations of sorts for themselves in the NCAA tournament: Beilein does well, Purnell does poorly. Still, making it to the dance was a huge accomplishment for this Michigan team, and asking them to win one as an underdog might be too much to ask. Clemson will probably take the win (though again, I’m shocked at how close these two teams’ tempo-free profiles actually were), and the Wolverines will have to wait until Year 3 of the John Beilein era for their first tournament win.

Posted under Basketball

Reader Adam writes:

If Feagin is not ready to start next season, what will RR do with the offense? I know he likes to have the QB run, but Steven Threet and David Cone are slow.

While Rich Rodriguez does indeed like to have a quarterback who can both pass and run the ball, he is too good a coach to suddenly become a failure if the talent on the team doesn’t sync with his mission. In 2005, West Virginia started Adam Bednarik at QB, and Pat White didn’t take over until Bednarik went down with injury (Bednarik now chills out with a headset on).

In 1999 and 2000, Rich was the offensive coordinator at Clemson. (This is prior to his years with Shaun King at Tulane, when King set an NCAA record for passing efficiency, the most commonly cited evidence that Rodriguez can run an offense with a dropback QB). In 2000, Woody Dantzler started at the quarterback position. In the NFL, Dantzler was most known for a Hesterian kickoff return touchdown while playing for the Dallas Cowboys. He was a run-pass talent, and the Clemson offense in 2000 looked a lot like West Virginia’s in 2007.

In 1999, however, Clemson had an incumbent starter by the name of Brandon Streeter. Streeter was not the athlete that Dantzler was, but went into the season expecting to start. As it turned out, the two quarterbacks ended up sharing time under center (or in the shotgun, as it were). Streeter was the starter, but Dantzler played as well, and the two had a similar number of passing attempts. I believe (but am not sure) that Streeter was injured at various points during the year. Danztler played in 10 games, starting 6, and Streeter played in 8, starting 7.

1999 Clemson QB

Player	Games-Starts	Rushes	Net Yards	Average	TD
Dantzler	10-6	146	588	4.0	4
Streeter	8-7	42	37	0.9	2

1999 Clemson QB

Player	Comp-Att-INT	Yards	TD	Comp%	Efficiency
Dantzler	112-201-6	1506	9	55.7	127.9
Streeter	135-214-9	1466	4	63.1	118.4

When Dantzler was in, he was able to run. When Streeter was in, he was not forced to run all that often. So, if you’re curious as to what a Rich Rodriguez offense with a less mobile quarterback might look like, take a gander at Streeter highlights from 1999.

Of course, Streeter was a fifth-year senior and Dantzler a junior. For Michigan in 2008, redshirt and true freshmen are expected to carry the load. If Threet starts, the schemes might be 1999 Clemson, but the execution will probably be much worse.

Jared asks:

When Pat White went down, West Virginia was screwed. It happened against South Florida and Pitt. Can Rodriguez not use a backup quarterback effectively?

I think the issue is not that Rodriguez can’t use a backup quarterback, but rather that West Virginia’s backup quarterback, Jarrett Brown, was not ready to carry the team offensively. In the long run, I think this won’t be a huge issue for Michigan, as the name itself should help draw more talent at the QB position beyond one starter-level talent and a bunch of crappy career backups. Evidence of this is available in Michigan’s 2007 season, where Ryan Mallett may not have been completely prepared to handle the load, but at least the Wolverines had a talented player to step in when Chad Henne went down.

For the immediate time frame, this is far more of a potential problem. Michigan has 2 current scholarship quarterbacks in Steven Threet and David Cone. Incoming freshman Justin Feagin will enroll in the fall. Depth in general (much less quality depth) will be a big issue for Michigan this season. Expect current players like Carlos Brown and/or Brandon Minor to get practice reps, if only for emergency game situations.

Thanks to Clemson site Tiger Memories for the source files of those videos, and my apologies for the watermarks on them.

p.s.: jim tressel plz dont punch our playerz

Posted under Coaching, Video