Unverified Voracity Steamy About Many Things Comment Count

Brian

Site note. Had some issues getting and converting the game this week—my UFR process is byzantine—so UFR will be delayed until Thursday/Friday. It's a bye week, be chill.

Reminder. This is what Michigan wore on Saturday:

UM_MSU_Gordon-thumb-300x451-91668[1]

I hadn't seen a good shot of the sleeves, which miraculously manage to make the whole ensemble seem even dumber-looking. If you run across a picture from this game in five years you are going to laugh at the clown uniforms like people laugh at that one year a bunch of teams wore stormtrooper shoulders.

The MZone points at a prescient slippery slope prediction and says get used to it. Michigan's the first team to get their Arena League on twice in one year—even the pro combat victims only have to put up with it once.

How does this happen again? There will be a fuller discussion in the UFR of this, but it is absolutely maddening to see MSU time those double-A-gap blitzes with Molk's head going down and never get a check or read in their face. Molk on this:

"They did jump our snap count," Molk said. "They knew us, they knew how we played and how our plays were going to start."

Michigan State's Trenton Robinson originally told The Wolverine on Saturday his team could anticipate Molk's snaps because he bobbed his head down, then back up before he hiked the ball. …

Molk said Michigan recognized this during the game, but could not adjust because of the crowd at Spartan Stadium.

"Making an adjustment came down to our ability to communicate, and with the crowd noise, it sort of covered that," he said. "It puts us into a tough situation, and something we have to react to, and we weren't ready to react. They got us, no doubt."

During the game? They've done this the last three years! For Michigan to have no answer to the instant A-gap blitz into the fourth quarter is a massive, inexplicable coaching failure. Not once did Michigan block that, not once did they bring Molk's head up to reveal the blitz and then check into another play. There was no one in the center of the field for a dozen snaps and Michigan didn't use this at all.

Upside: At least this blows up the halftime adjustments meme. Downside: it's been replaced with the "Michigan State was tougher" meme, which even Molk is repeating. I guess that's the effect of an offseason in which every other word out of Hoke's mouth was "toughness." I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing MSU outcoach Michigan for the fourth straight year. It's not toughness when no one has an angle to block the same linebacker five times.

Boo-boo, line edition. Via a pouty-looking WCBN sports director hanging out in Sweden:

Taylor Lewan limping around campus with a giant boot on his left foot/ankle. Looks uncomfortable.

Somewhere on the coaching film there is evidence Gholston swept the leg. Of this there can be no doubt.

Obligatory Gholston-Dantonio statement. Anyone who's surprised that MSU is ham-fistedly taking a page from the Gene Smith playbook by declaring Saturday's events an "isolated incident" in an attempt to keep a starter on the field hasn't been paying attention. Dantonio's established a pattern. Ending a kid's hockey career with a sucker punch doesn't get you kicked off the team, every year there's a posse of 20 guys getting together to beat up some engineers, etc. etc. etc. This is the way he wants his program. End of story.

Bielema don't care. I've been annoyed with the program's public reaction to the above, possibly because it seems like they're lying through their teeth for better PR. This doesn't make me right, it just makes me annoyed. In contrast, Bret Bielema is a guy who gets his digs in:

"We'll do our talking with our pads and we'll do it between the whistles."

This is the only guy in the league who was able to call Tressel the asshat he was instead of going with that tragic hero/tragedy business that Carr and Dantonio did or refusing comment like everyone else. He also runs up scores like there's no tomorrow—it's clear he's something of an asshat himself, but these days I'll take any public figure who says what he thinks instead of what someone says he should think because it looks prettier in the paper.

Ain't hearing you about a deranged prosecutor. In the aftermath of the personal-foul-fest over the weeked the WSJ assembled their number-crunching team and came up with a list of the dirtiest rivalries in college football as measured by personal fouls of a late/unnecessary hit variety. A number are expected. One in particular is not:

RIVALRY PER GAME BIGGER OFFENDER
Auburn-Georgia 5.4 Georgia 59%
Duke-North Carolina 5.2 N. Carolina 69%
UCLA-Southern California 4.8 UCLA 54%
N. Mexico-N.Mexico St. 4.6 N. Mexico 65%
Kansas-Missouri 4.2 Missouri 76%
Michigan-Michigan St. 4.0 Michigan St 80%
C. Michigan-W. Michigan 3.8 Western 58%
Brigham Young-Utah 3.6 Utah 61%
NC State-North Carolina 3.4 N. Carolina 59%

All of those are competitive series save North Carolina bludgeoning Duke annually.  Maybe they're just mean dudes at UNC—they're the only team to show up twice.

Of course, this pretends the personal foul stuff is a two way street, which it isn't in certain cases. On a per team basis your winners are:

  1. UNC (vs Duke)
  2. MSU
  3. Missouri
  4. Georgia

So… yeah, UNC hates Duke a lot. Either that or it's impossible to not get personal fouls for unnecessary roughness when you've got a lot of illegally acquired future NFL players and they've got eleven mewling kittens.

The fresh take NOTline*. Magazine writer Chris Jones came up with a fresh take that really adds to the sporting zeitgeist: you shouldn't say "we" when you are identifying the team you root for because you are not on the team. Awesome, dude. Thanks. For your troubles SBN's Andrew Sharp effectively compares you to Whitney.

Sharp has ten reasons a fan might break out the we but doesn't hit the reason I do it periodically: it is a convenient linguistic trick. If I am discussing the Michigan-Michigan State game and wish to refer to the teams by words shorter to read and type, I can either continually re-introduce the team names and briefly refer to whichever one is the most recent antecedent as "they." That's potentially annoying and confusing. The other option is to dump them entirely in favor of "we" and "they," which clearly indicate who is who while preventing constant repetition of already established facts—that we are indeed talking about Michigan and Michigan State.

It would take a fun-hating mutant whose super power is pedantry to object to this, which is why someone who works for a newspaper or magazine writes this column every three months.

*[BOOM.]

Trouba: pretty good. Hockey 2012 D commit Jacob Trouba is good, first round good. As of late he's pushing his way into the top half of the first round:

Defenseman Jacob Trouba (U-18 U.S. national team development program): He is most likely to land in the top 10 picks and could crack the top five if he keeps progressing. He's 6-1 and 170 pounds, and he can skate well, fire the puck with authority and show a physical presence.

"You hate to say a guy can do it all, but this guy can do it all," said former Calgary Flames general manager Craig Button, an analyst for NHL Network.

Trouba checks in tenth on Button's list of top prospects at TSN; forward commit Boo Nieves is on his watch list. He's seventh to ISS. Nieves also features as a "riser":

Boo Nieves, LW, Kent HS
Nieves has rocketed up the charts after showing off his stuff with USA at the Ivan Hlinka on top of several favorable viewings last season. Nieves is a skilled, offensively productive center who has the potential to grow into his body. He has great hands and displays a real high level of skill. He also has better then average skating, utilizing a smooth stride that provides him with a top gear when required.

He's still not in ISS's top 30.

Comment truth. Let me pull this out from the depths of the game column comment thread:

With our personnel, I think most people would want Rodriguez running the offense. They would just want him to stay far, far away from the defense.

The dirty little secret is this: This game was the cost of doing business, by deciding for a full scale switch from the head coach - who didn't earn himself a 4th year based on results, everyone settle down -  on down, rather than just going after the massive problem that was the defensive coordinator and staff. Now, in the long term it was probably the right decision, but in the short term, we have set ourselves up for frustration. …

[discussion of last year's game vs this year's game with focus on field position and yardage]

So reality is this: Because Rodriguez was defensively incapable, he lost his job. In turn, Hoke was hired and he brought in Mattison, a guy who has proven - along with having a more experienced secondary - to be one of the best hires in college football. He also brought in Borges, who isn't the proper fit for our offensive talent. It's not his fault and as has been stated, won't be a problem in 2 years time. But this year, we're going to have to suffer through another flawed season, which to me is incredibly frustrating given that a spot in the Big Ten title game is there for the taking.

That is exactly where I'm at. We had to deep-six Rodriguez and the coaching hire appears to be working out about as well as anyone could have hoped, but burning Denard's career in an offense he's not suited for is killing me. Shades of gray exist.

Etc.: Basketball ranked 20th by Rivals. Smart Football on combining quick passes with runs and screens—this is like extending the zone read concept to linebackers downfield. Michigan Monday in case anyone thinks the Sparty == Dirty meme is restricted to homers. Lake the Posts also jumps in with outrage(!).

Comments

MichFan1997

October 19th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^

I'm not making the blocks out there, but fans are also the people who make the noise that helps their teams. (Molk said crowd noise affected their ability to adjust the snap count. The Bears had numerous false starts in Ford Field, some of which were probably due to not being able to hear Cutler call out the snap). The fans are also the people who invest the money into the team. How do these writers thing teams like the Yankees can afford all they players they have? Maybe it has a liiiiiiiiiittle something to do with the people spending hundreds of dollars each at a game, in addition to buying merchandise, ect. Maybe when people invest that much time and money in a team, they deserve to say "we" because without the fans, there is no team at all.

msoccer10

October 19th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^

Using "we" for a pro sports team has always annoyed me, but I feel differently about my high school and college. If I hear a retired professional refer to his old team as "we" I also don't mind it. To me, I am talking about Michigan (fer god sakes). And that isn't about this team or even football. Its about the institution, and I feel like I am a part of that "we".

ijohnb

October 19th, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^

is acceptable for a team of which you are a fan..  All of the "who is we" and "when did you start playing for that team" is ridiculous.  You say "we" so you don't have to say "the University of Michigan Wolverine football team" every time you make reference to it in discussion.  It's part of fandum.

Derek

October 19th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^

It's just cutesy pseudo-intellectual reasoning, an activity common among people with less-than-stellar intellects with overinflated impressions of their own intelligence, that dictates not using 'we'. In other words, it's the behavior of a smart aleck.

Erik_in_Dayton

October 19th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^

I've known D-1 athletes.  I'm familiar with the sacrifices that they make and the pressures that they are under - and the people I knew weren't Michigan football players, who must face much greater pressure.  Until I'm getting concussions, being criticized on national TV and the internet, and running at 6:00 AM unti I puke with the team, I won't say "we."  If you find that cute, good for you.

profitgoblue

October 19th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^

I had that exact same thing explained to me by a college football player.  I once said "we" in connection with Michigan football and he jumped down my throat.  Essentially, he said that I was a turd for pretending like I am part of the football program in any way other than being a paying supporter.  Ever since that day, I've never referred to "my" team as "mine."

M-Wolverine

October 19th, 2011 at 3:07 PM ^

Uhm, how did he think he got his scholarship, and all the perks that went with it....?

I think the better point would be all the people who don't bother to say "we", or do, but are all over their ass every time they lose, like it's some personal affront made directly at them, when they've never taken a hit, practiced hard, etc.  That's probably be a better rebuff than people who actually want to support the team.

M-Wolverine

October 19th, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^

If you work for Ford or IBM, and they're starting a new program or doing something, and someone asks you what's going on over there, and you say "well I think we're going in this direction because ....." no one gets upset because you didn't actually have any say in what Bill Gates decided to do. And no one thinks that you meant that you did. If you went to the school, the "we" is the University of Michigan.  Which last I checked the Athletic Department (while self-sustaining) is still part of.  They don't call themselves the Ann Arbor Wolverines.

But even if they did, pro teams don't just go by "the Lions" or "the Tigers", but the DETROIT teams. So even though they're not actually made up of ALL of the people of Detroit, and no one elected them as representatives (and a lot of pro teams don't even play where they say they're from...Pistons...Giants/Jets) by associating yourself with the region, the region has equal right and expectation to associate with you. It's all just silly mental masterbation.

Erik_in_Dayton

October 19th, 2011 at 3:20 PM ^

I'm not quick, though, to say "we" at work or anywhere else unless I was/am directly involved in whatever it is that I'm talking about.  I think that the players go through something unique, making them (and the coaches) the only appropriate members of the group, i.e., "we."  I see your points, though. 

As for masturbation, how did you know I was...I mean...I have to return some video tapes. 

M-Wolverine

October 19th, 2011 at 4:42 PM ^

I think inside work vs. outside are two different things. Just like I think if you say to an actually football player or coach "'we' kinda sucked last weekend, huh?" you deserve a punch in the mouth. I meant that if someone who knows you work for said company wants to know what's going on "on the inside" and they ask you and say "we".  Much like I know I have family members who ask what's going on with the Athletic Program.  You just are more "in" than they are.  And a part of it, so you might say "we". I wouldn't say to a co-worker "we designed the Ford Focus" when I'm in Dealership Sales or whatever.  But I might say to my friend "we have high hopes for the new Focus" even though I didn't do jack to get it there.

BlueGoM

October 19th, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^

Seems kinda cool.  I want one, but I'll have to work out more to get the biceps to warrant wearing the shirt :)

Completely agree about the snap count.   You should expect it now, MSU's d line has been doing this since 2009.  That's a coaching failure, not  "toughness".

 

yoopergoblue

October 19th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^

The talk of toughness by the staff will continue until the team plays with the toughness and physicality that they are capable of and expected to exhibit as a Michigan Wolverine.  Anyone who watched the game on Saturday could tell that MSU out-toughed us and physically beat us up.  

Feat of Clay

October 19th, 2011 at 5:20 PM ^

I dunno man, this blog and several of its diehard contributors break down film play by play.  People have been paying super close attention to details all along.  Did they mention it?  Has Molk's "tell" been discussed before on this board?  Have other teams caught onto it?   Maybe it's one of those things that seems hugely obvious only after it's been pointed out

imafreak1

October 19th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^

Upside: At least this blows up the halftime adjustments meme.

I don't see this as an upside. Neither do I see how this has anything to do with any other alleged halftime adjustments in any other game.

Please to explain.

2plankr

October 19th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^

After the last few games, some people were saying our coaches make great half time adjustments, other people were saying that was exaggerated.

At halftime of this game there were two possible outcomes - either the coaches would make great halftime adjustments, winning us the game, and validating the first group of people, or they wouldnt, validating the second group.  Apparently that second outcome was desirable in some way. It makes sense if you understand that some people's desire to be right is on the same order as their desire for michigan to win, if not even greater.

STW P. Brabbs

October 19th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^

At first, I thought it was just a typo - that he meant to write 'upshot.'  But 'at least' blows that theory out of the water. 

So I think it's just sarcastic.  BUT, in the context of Brian's long emotional (EMOtional?) journey over the past year, I think it's fair to say that there's a subcurrent of embittered gloating there. 

Which is fine, I guess.  It's not like it's taking anyone by surprise at this point.  It's gonna take some time to resolve itself. 

El Jeffe

October 19th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^

I think it's all part of Brian's quixotic crusade to get people to care more about things that demonstrably affect the outcome of processes and to care less about the things that don't. Hence his preference for advanced statistics than time of possession. Hence his hissy fits about "toughness" instead of "scheming so as to not allow State to blitz the A gap repeatedly." Stuff like that.

Erik_in_Dayton

October 19th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

The distinction you point to is one where Brian is sometimes off-base, I think.  Sometimes a coach has very big effect on a team by preaching toughness and instilling an attitude of aggression.  Brian's bias against this, if I had to guess, comes from the fact that you can't measure this effect.  

El Jeffe

October 19th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^

Totally agree. This is getting super meta, but the thing I think Brian hates more than anything is people observing that Team A beat Team B and assuming that's because Team A was "tougher" and "wanted it more" and "was in a zone" and "got after it" instead of figuring out what actually happened. Hence, the UFR and love of FEI etc.

EDIT: Not saying that those platitudes don't matter, but as you point out, they're not measurable.

Brian

October 19th, 2011 at 2:57 PM ^

I agree that a coach can do this.

I disagree with the emphasis that journalists put on this aspect of coaching because they don't know enough about football to say otherwise. Getting out-toughed was far down Michigan's list of problems Saturday, except insofar as Michigan not being able to hold the edge or pass-block was "toughness." Probably somewhat, though a lot of that was based on alignment.

wolverine1987

October 19th, 2011 at 4:48 PM ^

David Molk, who most assuredely "knows football," himself said we were out-toughed. Another example: people who discount non-measurables in football always poop on someone else saying that team A "came out flat," as if the emotional level of a team was completely irrelevant to the results it gets. In football, emotions are not irrelevant to results, because they often are tied to effort. Football players themselves, all the time, say after a poor effort that they were flat. I don't think it's irrelevant all all, and the fact it can't be measured is simply unfotunate, not dis-qualifying.

lexus larry

October 19th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

While the mainstream media enjoying fans seem to have had a need for "MANBALL" and "TOUGHNESS" and "COUNTDOWN CLOCKS," the passionate, data-craving afficionados here at mgoblog would probably have preferred less of that "crap."  And a little more realization of what was inherited, good and bad, rather than saying one thing (gonna utilize the talents of the kids that are here) and doing the other (no zone blocking, under center snaps, power I-forms, etc.). 

The on-field offense has been interesting to watch, given that we were taught by Bo and Mo and LC that "every play counts," while we've watched plenty of plays in 2011 get destroyed by making players who don't fit a certain scheme, run certain plays that seem to be pretty doomed from the outset.