SECFans Podcast previews UM/ND
While searching for good podcasts, I came across a good one that is hosted by a couple SEC fans. They did a good one on Shea at Michigan last week and this week they do a really interesting breakdown of the Michigan-Notre Dame game. Give it a look. 38 minutes well spent not working. One predicts Michigan win one predicts Notre Dame win.
August 28th, 2018 at 2:31 PM ^
Hell with Notre Dame
August 28th, 2018 at 2:32 PM ^
Thanks for the link.
For other CFB podcasts, really like The Solid Verbal and Athlon's Cover 2.
August 28th, 2018 at 2:36 PM ^
Was talking with fellow M fans down here in the South and we're all pretty even keeled. We don't always predict Michigan will win a game.
That said, just about all of us felt that we're not only going to beat Notre Dame, we're going to crush them.
It's hard for me to disagree. I mean, it just seems to me we have the better team at every position except maybe OL and Punter. I'm trying to not get too excited.... but it's not working.
August 28th, 2018 at 4:33 PM ^
Well predicting that without knowing how much the Oline has improved is a bit homerish. ND's defense will be good. Probably the best we will face until MSU, so I don't see a crushing. I predict something like 20 - 10. They are at home and it will be at night. Now if we get a defensive or special teams score it could be 30 - 10.
August 28th, 2018 at 10:44 PM ^
Strange, strange, bullshitty, things happen in South Bend.
Even if we have the better team on paper and play better, we still can and have lost.
Just saying, buckle up. And remember when considering what could happen, nothing's too low for Notre Dame.
August 28th, 2018 at 2:36 PM ^
"Well Billy Bob, who you think gonna win 'tween then hippie commies and the Pope-loving Catholic devils?"
"Jim Bob, it gonna be them there hippie liberals by 7 points."
August 28th, 2018 at 2:43 PM ^
Good lord man, this sounds like a joke from "Laugh In" or something. I expected more from you.
August 28th, 2018 at 2:47 PM ^
Those were the last words of Billy Bob before he was dragged into a sewer
August 28th, 2018 at 2:57 PM ^
They can’t all be gems, Marvin. Without singles and doubles, home runs would be boring
August 28th, 2018 at 3:06 PM ^
Probably closer to reaching first after a strike out than a single or double.
August 28th, 2018 at 6:35 PM ^
It was more like reaching first by getting hit by a pitch.
August 28th, 2018 at 7:13 PM ^
Hey now. No shame in taking a pitch. Only way I ever got on base.
August 28th, 2018 at 3:05 PM ^
I had a work colleague (great guy) raised in the rural south share with me that when he was growing up in the 60's his dad told him there were 3 things that would destroy the US: communism, alcoholism, and catholicism. For this reason I'd propose we amend it to be the "hippie commies and the drunk-Irish Catholic devils" as this hits the trifecta and maybe stretches the single into a double.
August 28th, 2018 at 3:05 PM ^
Thanks for posting, I'm the one actually talking in the video in question. We did a number of B10 games the last couple of years and really enjoy breaking out of the SEC on a weekly basis.
We're a numbers driven channel for sure. Unfortunately, this game is in week 1. If it was in week 4, we would have used our computer model which was actually rather successful last year.
August 28th, 2018 at 3:08 PM ^
thanks for sharing your perspective guys - good luck to your team this weekend. Any push to get the SEC to move to 9 conference games?
August 28th, 2018 at 3:16 PM ^
I actually despise the 9 conference game format. Nick Saban has pushed for it for years. We discuss this in detail in a few other videos how the 9 conf game format hurts college football.
Basically there's a "bag of wins" in every conference when they play one another. And in the B1G, if you win the Rutgers/Maryland lottery, you have 2 baked in wins every year that push the top of the conference artificially higher. The same thing happens in the PAC 12. If you circle the wagons and keep everything in conference, we have no idea how hard or easy your schedule is because there's few external data points. The larger these conferences get, the worse (and more numerous) the teams are at the bottom.
I think a far better format would be an 8 conference game slate with 2 mandated P5 OOC opponents. This gives us two guaranteed inter-conference data points for comparison, which could actually help us determine how tough one's conference schedule is.
A good example of this is Washington. Last year, they started the season with Rutgers, Montana, and Fresno St. Then closed off their schedule to PAC12, but avoided USC, lost to Stanford. Fresno St ended up being the highest ranked opponent they beat in S&P+.
Could you imagine an SEC East team adding a 9th conf game and it was Arkansas? They could literally beat all unranked teams and have like a 1 game schedule. I'd rather an SEC east team play 8 conf games, 2 cupcakes, Michigan and Texas Tech. It'd tell us a looooot more about everyone's schedule, not just theirs.
August 28th, 2018 at 3:35 PM ^
thanks for the response. I would contend playing another SEC team, no matter how bad, is better than playing teams like: Charleston Southern, Austin Peay, UMass, Murray State, UT Martin, Chattanooga, ETSU, UTEP, Charlotte, Nevada, Louisiana, The Citadel, Eastern Illinois, Alabama State, Liberty, SE Louisiana, Stephen F. Austin, NW State, ULM, and UAB for example. Your point about being able to better judge based on quality is well taken - but some of these matchups don't tell you anything except how deep your bench is and some of the SEC teams play multiple . And I openly acknowledge that UM plays SMU this year and has played their fair share of tomato cans in the past.
August 28th, 2018 at 3:47 PM ^
Teams are still going to play scrubs. And if we're talking about elite teams in playoff consideration, playing ETSU vs playing Arkansas really doesn't matter. Alabama has beaten 73 consecutive unranked opponents. I don't think it tells us anything if they play the extra conf game. They beat Ole Miss 66-3 last year, Vandy 59-0. But my point really is that adding the extra conference game still tells us nothing because of the lack of external data points. How do we know beating Arkansas is nothing special if the only teams who beat them are in the SEC?
It's also not super fair. What if Alabama adds a 9th game and it's Georgia, while Wisconsin adds a 9th game and it's always Maryland/Rutgers? I generally wouldn't care if we weren't SO obsessed with win loss records. The sports voting media can't look past a clean record to see whether or not the team is elite or just squeaked by a bunch of average teams (see 2012 Notre Dame).
I agree that adding that extra game in conference would be better than an Alabama St. But they're still going to play Alabama St, and just substitute Fresno St or Colorado St for Arkansas (and last year both were better than Arkansas).
There's nothing wrong with playing SMU. Michigan has a brutal schedule and cupcakes matter for team development.
August 28th, 2018 at 3:49 PM ^
I'm all for trying to mandate P5 matchups, but I'd much rather see SEC teams plays Arkansas than the late-season 1-AA cakewalk that half the conference gets each year. These are your Week 12 games for the powers-that-be this season:
Alabama v Citadel, Auburn v Liberty, Florida v Idaho, Georgia v UMass, TAMU v UAB, LSU v Rice, and S. Carolina v Chattanooga
August 28th, 2018 at 3:58 PM ^
That cakewalk is always sandwiched in between two tough games. Auburn this year has Liberty but on either side of Liberty are @Georgia and @Alabama. Alabama goes vs Miss St and vs Auburn. With Rutgers finishing their season with games against Wisky, Michigan, Penn St, Mich St, you can't tell me that's not intentionally exploiting them in a similar fashion.
Michigan's stretch vs Wisky, @MSU, @PSU will absolutely result in at least one loss if for no other reason that they're all in a row. I want to see the best team win because they're the better team, not because they caught a team in a brutal stretch that left them bloodied half to death.
If Auburn as to go @UGA vs LSU @Alabama, they may be better than all three but lost one on sheer timing alone.
August 28th, 2018 at 4:28 PM ^
Not so fast, PSU is a home game...
August 28th, 2018 at 4:37 PM ^
Semantics. The schedule is still unbelievably brutal. [Peeks over at Wisconsin's schedule...]
August 28th, 2018 at 5:21 PM ^
I think any P5 team that plays a non-P5 team in November should be automatically disqualified from the postseason.
Just like if a person is collecting Social Security, they should be subject to periodic assessment of their safety and competence behind the wheel. It's just common sense.
August 28th, 2018 at 6:02 PM ^
How is a loss or win in November any different from one in October?
And under your guidelines are you willing to loan out Rutgers in November for the rest of us? ;)
August 28th, 2018 at 6:25 PM ^
Who in the hell let this SEC fan in here with his reasoned and well thought out arguments? This fucker has me convinced that a 9 game conference schedule isn’t the fix all I imagined. Gonna check out this podcast now.
August 28th, 2018 at 3:15 PM ^
I've added y'all to my walk playlist. It's a well done podcast. Looking forward to more!
August 28th, 2018 at 3:46 PM ^
Michigan a borderline top-25 team? Pfft. Definitely a hater giving their view off-camera.
Also, curious how they praise the SEC playing FCS schools and yet say nothing about how Bama is afraid to play a game out of the South the entire year.
August 28th, 2018 at 4:17 PM ^
Michigan is a borderline top 25 team. They're coming off a season where they went 0-4 against the good teams they played and lost another game against an average to below average South Carolina. We're consistent for teams inside the SEC as well that we don't give position units or players credit for being a 'strength' of the team until they prove it on the field.
We also mentioned how UM will likely be a better team this year with Patterson but potentially have an equal or worse W/L record because of how brutal the schedule is, including trading a poor OOC team (Florida) for a good one (ND).
Alabama isn't 'afraid' to play a game outside of the south. They play a big time OOC opponent every year at a neutral site. These tend to be in the south. Before these became en vogue, Alabama played at PSU (2011). UGA played at South Bend. I fail to see how a 3 hour plane trip to a midwestern state in September is a bigger deal than a 4 hour bus ride to Arkansas in October.
We didn't praise FCS scheduling but rather pointed out how an FCS team won't challenge an elite team any differently than a Kansas or G5 D1 team. Ohio St played UNLV last year that actually lost to an FCS school.
August 28th, 2018 at 4:45 PM ^
I'm sorry, but you guys were purporting to be objective based off of extremely limited analysis. You guys cherry-picked a few team stats and stopped there, mentioned past records, some schedule, and tried valuing both teams without evaluating any players. It was like listening to a first-year analyst tell me why I shouldn't buy IBM because of the stock price and P/E ratio.
In 38 minutes you guys talked about... one returning Michigan player by name (Shea Patterson)? Maybe I missed it. Never mind having All-American candidates at every position group on defense. Never mind ours or Notre Dame's coaching changes (we added Ben Herbert, Jim McElwain, Al Washington, Sherrone Moore). Never mind the number of players we or Notre Dame are returning. And never mind the learning curve variances among position groups e.g. our expected jump in development at WR.
August 28th, 2018 at 5:15 PM ^
Purporting to be objective? You have to SEC guys predicting ND and Michigan. I'm not sure how you get more objective than that.
"cherry picked a few teams stats"
Uhhhh, what? We don't cherry pick, we are a statistical driven channel that focuses on yards per play averages instead of total yardage (which is why we talk about team performance often more than individual players)
"It was like listening to a first-year analyst tell me why I shouldn't buy IBM because of the stock price and P/E ratio."
This isn't a very charitable take of our channel or how we approach analysis, I think you forget that we don't have enough time to discuss Michigan in detail every day. We had 30+ minutes to cover two high profile teams in as much detail as possible. That's not a lot of time at all.
In 38 minutes we talked about the Michigan OL, Shea Patterson, Speight and O'Korn, losing Josh Adams and almost the entirety of the ND WR production from last year. We talked about a scheme fit with Wimbush and whether it'd make more sense to use Ian Book given the differences in skillset. We discussed how Michigan's defense gave up 32 ppg against top 50 offenses. This is a truly important stat to put in context where there are potential holes in the Michigan team. We also covered ND's offensive and defensive performances against similar teams, as well as their struggles against an LSU team that we werent' very high on last year.
We are generally very detailed about a few specific data points on a show we discuss.And please spare me the "learning curve variances among position groups" this is a throwaway obscure talking point based on hype and projection, not on actual results on the field. I liken this to the same fight we're having with Miami fans who are lecturing us for not giving their rookie WR unit a ton of credit because they're 'going to be really good, you just don't know it yet...trust us, we read all the practice reports'
If you're curious about the linear regression model we use in our modeling (once enough data is available), you can look at our model from last year for the UM/OSU game that predicted a 31-17 final score (it ended up 31-20). Image linked: http://secfans.com/data/model_miichohiost.png
August 28th, 2018 at 5:42 PM ^
The problem with your model is that it doesn't always give the answers some listeners want to hear. :)
I thought the podcast interesting and well-done. I listened to your preview of Florida-Michigan last year, and thought you caught most of the major issues that eventuated (though somehow you missed predicting that Speight would throw consecutive pick-6s). I don't always agree with your takes, but that's never because you don't justify them.
Welcome to the board. I hope you will peek in every now and then, as time allows, and let us know what's going on in SEC country that's not making the news.
August 28th, 2018 at 9:26 PM ^
Haha, yeah we piss off our fair share of fans of SEC teams as well. We are brutally honest and it's done us no favors with a lot of folks. Right now we're in LSU fans crosshairs because we've consistently said that Orgeron was a disaster hire.
August 29th, 2018 at 1:39 AM ^
First of all, terrific broadcasts. I enjoyed both this one and the previous one on Shea.
I appreciate your data-driven, model-based approach for predicting future outcomes, but surely you appreciate the shortcomings of such an approach for the first game of a new season.
As was pointed out in the Shea broadcast, Michigan had no business being any good last year. They lost 10 starters on defense and another half-dozen on offense. Then they lost not just one, but two starting quarterbacks to injury (how did FSU do losing their starting QB?). To the first point, because of recent coaching turnover, the '14 and '15 classes were very small, 16 and 14 I believe. As a result, last year's team was heavy on SO starters (and FR backups). Would your model have predicted the decline that took place last year, based on 2016 results?
Over to Don Brown and your numerical look at explosive plays. Three categories of plays have been discussed over and over again that account for the bulk of these, not a secret to the defensive staff, and not something being ignored by the staff.
1. Man to man coverage by the safeties. We got burned here. We lost two very athletic starters from the 2016 team and relied on a JR and SO first-time starter last year, with FR backups. From all accounts, this has been an area of high emphasis all off-season. And now there are SO backups with experience pushing the starters. You don't need to be a Pollyanna to expect big improvement here.
2. Weak-side linebacker covering RBs on pass routes. Last year's starter, Mike McCray, was very solid against the run but lacked the speed to cover the better RBs. The LBs recruited by Don Brown are relative speed demons in comparison. And recruiting top-grade LBs will never be a problem while Brown runs the show here. Improvement expected, yes, now and evermore.
3. QBs running wild downfield while DBs run with their backs turned chasing WRs to the goal line. There's been talk about using more zone in some circumstances against teams with running QBs. Safe to say that it's being addressed, but we'll have to see.
Given all this, I think that your projection for the 2018 season in this regard gives far too much weight to the data obtained from the 2017 season.
August 29th, 2018 at 9:31 AM ^
To your point of limitations of data in week 1, you're spot on. We linked above our computer model that has proven very successful for multiple years, but we don't even generate it until week 4 because there's not enough data points to glean anything from a linear regression model.
We're not doing that much projection from actual 2017 analytics. We also discussed the explosive plays being a function of not having an offense that could be relied upon - thus causing some intentional risk taking as a scheme defensively. I don't think that will be the case as much this year.
The 2018 projection is based on a few things:
1) You're trading a poor Florida team for a good Notre Dame team on the schedule.
2) You have a brutal 3 game stretch all in a row that could lead to a loss based solely on timing alone
3) Patterson will need some time in this system to exercise his gunslinger (out of necessity) demons.
I'm firmly convinced that 2018 UM will be better than 2017 UM but with a similar record because of those things. The key difference to me is that, in this scenario, UM will likely be poorly matched in their bowl game with a more inferior opponent and will likely dominate. Very much like the 2010 Alabama team that was paired with Michigan St.
August 29th, 2018 at 11:46 AM ^
Okay.
But to your point about Michigan's defense being less aggressive because of a better offense, Don "Solve Your Problems With Aggression" Brown might have a word with you. His approach is more along the lines of getting safeties better at man-to-man and linebackers better at covering RBs.
Saturday should be fun. Good luck to whoever you're rooting for.
August 28th, 2018 at 3:51 PM ^
I candidly didnt have time to listen to it but I did read our official prediction thread yesterday so my only question is did they have us winning 49-0 or better as about 75% of the board predicted or the more pessimistic 45-3 that the remaining "negative nancy's" thought will happen?
August 28th, 2018 at 3:52 PM ^
Please...not one mention of Karan Higdon. Weak...
August 28th, 2018 at 4:25 PM ^
We actually didn't talk about RBs for Michigan at all. We record all our shows for the week all in one three hour sitting and try to be as brief as possible. RBs for UM are a bit of a known quantity even for our SEC focused audience.
For the record, I like Evans more than Higdon.
August 28th, 2018 at 3:54 PM ^
I have enjoyed these podcasts - there are several good ones from various SEC sites. Wish there were Michigan ones that weren't so cringe
August 29th, 2018 at 12:49 AM ^
Steve Deace's Michigan Podcast is a pretty good one. He gets Michael Spath on there each week. It's pretty entertaining.
August 28th, 2018 at 5:12 PM ^
I’ll insert the most obvious thing ever, which is true in most games. Win the Turnover battle on Saturday, and we will win the game.
If we don’t leave the defense out to dry with turnovers, we will win.
August 28th, 2018 at 7:37 PM ^
Sec cheats and pays players. Please do a podcast on THAT.
August 28th, 2018 at 9:34 PM ^
We actually called out Ole Miss for cheating years ago. It was as obvious as could be that they were when it happened. They were coming off of a 7-6 season, with a coach in his second year (Freeze) who was relatively no named, at a land locked school in Oxford, MS, with no history of landing 5 stars, and no real history of consistent winning at a high level.
And that recruiting class they were 5 star city. That just doesn't add up. Any time a school's recruiting turns on a dime in legitimate fashion, it's because there's some great reason for new hope. You either need a hot new coach, a surprise 10+ win season, an awakening of a blue blood, or at least be a school with good geography. You need 2-3 of those things to become 5 star city. Ole Miss had 0 of them.
They were cheating their asses off and everyone knew it. At the spring SEC coaches meetings in Destin, FL that spring, there were actually a number of SEC coaches who refused to speak to Freeze because of the mess he pulled.
That is the problem with the Ole Miss program in general. They have limited history of winning but fancy their program a blue blood. So when on the field reality doesn't meet their cognitive dissonance, they cut corners.
I say this as someone who loves Ole Miss, and nearly went to school there on a full academic scholarship. I've been semi-close to that program my whole life. Really hated the Freeze hire from day 1.
August 28th, 2018 at 11:06 PM ^
That's a reasonable take. I listened partially and liked it so I subscribed. However there are subtle digs you guys take (if SEC fans are your main audience then I dont disagree...its business) but stuff like
1. Michigan being fringe top 25 school. Uh...no. you are telling me there at 25 better schools than michigan ? Yea... I understand linear regression but this is college football. Also Harbaugh is the coach. Sorry not buying that.
2. Bigger one ... somewhere it was mentioned that M has Rashan Gary and Solomon so they'll shut down ND...(so far so good)...followed by...well in SEC you see these lines all the time. Really? So you're shitting on all conferences NOT SEC and they have crappy lines or are you equating Alabama = SEC here ? Give me a break.
3. I would like to know who are the top 4 teams to make playoffs this year for you? I would NOT be surprised if you picked alabama Georgia Auburn and threw a bone to eh let's just say big10 winner or some such travesty. Sorry for the swing but curious if this is SEC homer podcast...
August 28th, 2018 at 11:22 PM ^
We said Michigan is a "fringe top 25 school who went to a top 15 school when they added Patterson" that's not unreasonable at all.
The SEC is absolutely known for defensive lines. Clemson has the best DLine in the country, but the next 4 might be in the SEC, and none of those are Georgia.
If I had to pick right now I'd say Alabama, Ohio St, Clemson, and Oklahoma. SEC won't get 2 this year unless everyone absolutely crumbles. I think UGA takes a small step backwards (they lost an absolute ton of leadership and production from last year that freshman recruiting won't replace).
We're far more objective than you might think. Like I said earlier, lots of fans of SEC teams actually hate us.
August 28th, 2018 at 7:37 PM ^
More talking heads that tell me Nothing I don't know.
Brutal.
August 29th, 2018 at 12:54 PM ^
I thought they did an excellent job and I didn't see the bias that some of you are mentioning. Three things that annoy me from someone who runs a YouTube channel himself (and I'm a Michigan fan): 1) Just because a channel has a strong opinion that has a slight lean in a certain direction doesn't mean they are biased, necessarily. Maybe that is just what they believe to be true and maybe, just maybe, it IS true. Think outside the box or perhaps you're the one who is biased. 2) Don't expect a channel to know everything about your team. There are a TON of college football teams. When I make a video previewing two teams, I get their fan bases all on my case because I didn't mention this guy or that guy or this aspect or that aspect. BRO! I love the sport, but I don't watch your team as religiously as you do. Maybe it'd be good for you to hear what an outsider thinks of your team so that you can think with your head and not your heart. 3) A channel can only cover but so many topics. I hate when people tell me I left something out. Its annoying! If its something big, sure, but you can't expect someone to cover every little detail. We are trying to keep audience retention and sometimes that means condensing things. Thanks for reading. Don't care if you downvote or anything like that. I barely even know what that means. I just get on here to read more than I do to post. Just felt a pulling on this one as I see a bunch of armchair experts on here.
August 29th, 2018 at 2:50 PM ^
Thanks for the post Mr. Fuego. I watch all your game previews btw. I like enjoy format a lot! For the most part, Michigan fans here and on the channel have been really cool about the stuff they disagree with us on.
I find blue blood programs to be far better to interact with in general. Miami fans, however, have been absolutely horrible. Last year it was downright painful.
August 29th, 2018 at 4:48 PM ^
Absolutely! You got it!
Dang- I didn't know my stuff was reaching people like that. I'm only 11 videos in and trying learn the technical aspects lol. But I'm glad you enjoyed at least the rough drafts of what I hope I can make of the channel. Regardless of the viewership, its fun to speak your mind on a platform and be creative with it.
I work a job where I process and key orders throughout the night. Podcasts are PERFECT for me, so I'm definitely looking forward to watching more. Keep up the great work and I'll keep watching consistently, no doubt!
Lastly, spot on with that last comment. Blue blood fans have to know their stuff or else they're shunned by the rest of that blue blood community lol.
Have a great one, buddy! Good luck this season with the channel and with your team (Georgia?- assuming since you had the Braves cap on).
August 29th, 2018 at 5:19 PM ^
Ha, I'll never tell. :)