Since the Big Ten suspended "Michigan's Head Coach", couldn't the university "demote" Harbaugh to an analyst role for the next X number of months, "hire" Jack Harbaugh or literally anyone as "Head Coach" and Jim could be on the sideline acting in any capacity he wants? Only downside - Jim couldn't coach players during the week, but maybe just do this on Friday before The Game. Big Ten didn't punish Jim Harbaugh, so use it against them.
Afaik, there is no limit to the money you can spend on analysts and also no rule against what analysts can do on gameday.
This doesn't matter for this season - NCAA has not issued a Notice of Allegations yet and by the NCAA's own bylaws, Michigan has 90 days to respond to that. Meaning, even if the NCAA issued the notice on Monday, Michigan has until February to respond.
No punishment from the NCAA can come before Michigan responds to the notice.
If this is true, then this is 100% absolutely in person scouting being done. Furthermore, its not some iPhone video of the sidelines, its from staffers of Big Ten teams - much more useful and giving a much larger competitive advantage.
If true - head coaches from every team who was a part of the plan to steal Michigan's signals should be suspended indefinitely without an investigation... I mean, think of the children!!!!! (JK, in reality I think this is all dumb and we should just move to helmet communication to get rid of it)
Wow! I didn't realize the investigation doesn't technically start until the Notice of Allegations is delivered. If that is the case, I just don't see how the presidents, ADs, coaches, and Big Ten can be so short sighted.
This leads me to 2 thoughts - the Big Ten knows more than the public and the evidence is damning that Michigan/Harbaugh broke the rules & are going to get severe punishment from the NCAA (not sure how an extension would still be on the table if this is true as Michigan would have to have received the evidence if other Big Ten schools have).
or
The other schools hate Michigan so much that they are willing to set a precedent that will completely screw them in the future just to screw Michigan out of a 3rd straight title/playoff.
If the Big Ten is suspending Harbaugh pending the outcome of the NCAA investigation and the NCAA investigation comes back with a couple Level II violations - wouldn't that set the precedent that the Big Ten has to suspend every head coach that comes under investigation by the NCAA until the investigation is completed?
That seems like a really slippery slope - if OSU comes under investigation for, idk, offering money to recruits to not visit UM or to take officials to OSU, then Ryan Day would have to be suspended until the investigation is completed. This would lead to every single program in the Big Ten getting their head coach suspended as they all do illegal things that would be Level II violations.
Michigan won by 22. In Columbus. On a clear, sunny day.
On the 1 drive OSU decided to play it safe and not give up a big play, Michigan went on an 8 minute drive ending in a TD. OSU COULD NOT STOP US IN THE 2nd HALF.
This was not a one score game determined by a play that was extremely unlikely to happen. This was not a game where Michigan hung around based on bad reffing or turnovers or dropped passes or lucky breaks. This was a game where Michigan DOMINATED the 2nd half - just like they did to everyone else on their schedule.
While I agree that both can be successful there are some factors that helped Dantonio build his program that I don't think Tucker (or any near term MSU coach) can rely on.
The biggest one (that I think matters the most) is that Michigan had Rich Rod & Hoke running their program for 7 years of the Dantonio era. In those 7 years, Dantonio went 6-1 against Michigan. In his games against Carr & Harbaugh, Dantonio went 2-4 and the last 2 years against Harbaugh, MSU was outscored 65 - 17. As soon as Harbaugh began at Michigan, the programs were immediately equal even though Dantonio had owned the rivalry (and the Big Ten outside of OSU) for 5ish years.
Dantonio was a good coach who was the perfect fit at MSU. Whether Tucker is a good coach or not, I don't think he will reach the heights of Dantonio for the simple fact that our program is no longer a tire fire.
I would rather B, but IMO only in a home-and-home situation - I don't want to play another neutral field game like Bama in '13 or Florida in '17.
However, while a loss to Texas in the non-con won't keep us out of the playoffs if we beat OSU and win the Big Ten, it could keep us out if we bookended 10 wins with losses to both Texas and OSU. If we schedule cupcakes and then lose a competitive game to OSU - we still have a shot at the playoffs at 11-1. Even if we lose to a what end up being #1 OSU & #2 Texas by 1 point each, our shot at the playoffs are gone because no one with 2 losses will be in a 4 team playoff. If the playoffs expand, then we have a different conversation.
So while most fans probably prefer option B, I understand why coaches/ADs would choose option A and give their team a greater shot at the playoffs.
My main problem with the Schoonmaker throw is he is all alone - just loft it up to the corner and let him run to it, no one is catching him and its an easy TD. Cade tried to pinpoint and missed, it didn't need to be that difficult.
The Sainristil throw - during the game, I thought it should be a catch; on rewatch, it looks like a bad throw. Sainristil has a yard separation on his guy and is running a basic slant (an easy pitch and catch compared to some other throws). A good throw at chest level and Sainristil has a chance to make a play, but Cade misses badly.
The All throw - the ball is in front of All - if Cade was expecting him to sit down and All didn't, the throw should have been behind All. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like another inaccurate throw.
I may be missing something, but it definitely seems like something changed after the targeting hit.
While we finished 36th overall in Defensive SP+ last year, I would guess that those numbers have some preseason baked in due to COVID and the lack of games. Preseason expectations being factored in would definitely have helped our defense finish last year ranked higher than they should have been.
Overall, I don't think this current team is less talented than 2014 or 2015, but man do they seem poorly coached and to have glaring weaknesses in the roster.
Yes, I agree there was a lot of talent but was anyone ready to declare those players as being the foundation of a team competing for the playoffs during the 2014 season? I would argue even with the positive things shown, no one was ready to say that.
And we're in the same spot now. We have some holes on the team (CB, DT) but have tons of talent that is being questioned as to whether or not it can be the foundation of a team competing for the playoffs. Could a new coach take this team to the heights Harbaugh took the players from that 2014 team to?
I think there is some revisionist history for 2015 - coming out of 2014 we had no QB, the RBs were uninspiring, the WRs were difficult to judge because of how terrible the OLine was. TE was the only offensive position anyone could feel good about and that was because of Butt.
The defense coming out of 2014 was also tough to judge because of how much they had to play while the offense constantly stunk but I don't think people were very high on a lot of the guys who ended up performing superbly for Harbaugh. They showed potential but I don't think anyone expected a new coach to take the D to those new heights so quickly.
All of this is to say - a new coach could take some guys who haven't looked great and make them look much better in a new system or with new coaching or a new environment; and I think we feel a lot better about several position groups right now than we did in 2014 (RBs, OLine, WRs, LBs).
Harbaugh wins home games vs. everyone who is not OSU. Minnesota is the biggest question mark in my mind, but I think we will win a shoot out vs them, something like 42 - 38.
Wouldn't there be the same argument for Warriner though? Except with Warriner, there are not as many projections. Warriner coached several high draft picks with OSU, got 4 lineman drafted in the 2020 draft (including a first rounder) and has another lineman who is projected to be a first rounder.
I'm not saying Quinn isn't a good coach or doesn't have accomplishments; its just that Warriner has as many or more accomplishments.
Seth specifically points out that the 16 play drive could've ended on play 4 with a long bomb to Collins if Shea had seen him. I don't think you can put that on Gattis. On top of that, Shea missed 2 open deep throws on the first drive of the game. The lack of big plays appears to be a QB thing more than an offensive design issue.
On top of that, Alabama played specifically to not allow big plays - at times, you have to take what the defense gives you.
That being said, our offense does need to improve in the red zone. We settle for FGs far too often when we get into the red zone, even against mediocre teams. I think having a QB who knows how to run a zone read and is willing to keep the ball will significantly improve our red zone offense.
I disagree with the assessment that Brown's plans were diagnosed and OSU had the correct counter easily - especially with the plays shown in the article.
Several of the plays shown were a blown switch coverage in the secondary - LaVert Hill switched his coverage twice in the plays and the other player (Dax Hill/Ambry Thomas) did not have the same recognition of the play and were late to switch. I think this is on the coaching (secondary coaching in particular) but not on Brown's scheme. If the players switch appropriately, 2 of the plays shown in favor of Day are dead to rights - its a coaching problem, but not a scheme problem imo.
Also, 2 of the plays shown appear to be Dax Hill getting got - he was a freshman who had started 2 games and only because of injury. Good on them for finding a weakness, but not exactly evidence that Day outschemed Brown.
Lastly, the tempo one where Thomas wasn't ready for the snap - I honestly have no idea how you put that on Brown's scheme. It was a good trick that would hopefully only work once and was dangerously close to having multiple guys moving at the snap (I believe it should have been an illegal procedure penalty as both the TE and RB were moving/not set).
I think this was much more about the jimmy's and joe's than it was about the X's and O's.
1. 2013 - the team was so talented and never knew who would go off that game. However, the 2017 team was damn fun to watch down the stretch - if they had been better throughout the season, I would go with them. 2013 did it the whole year.
2. 2016 - I don't think we would have won the national championship in 2006 or 2016, but I do think 2008 - 2014 are still bad regardless of the 2006 game. If we win 2016 I think we are talking about Harbaugh and the program as one of the 6 or 7 best in the country right now.
3. No
4. Jordan Poole - I think Howard would've let him create more and would have been able to connect to him better than Beilein. I think Howard would've brought out the best in Poole and we would've seen this years team possibly win the B10 because of it.
5. Izzo - his incessant whining is so annoying; plus, I think he is a scumbag when it comes to player discipline, who he recruits/protects, etc. Just time for him to go
1. 2015 MSU - this game would've ended MSU as soon as UM got a real coach. App State sucked, but that team and the coming years were going to happen either way because of the end of Carr's regime.
2. Hello heisman
3. Stauskas - Hart was only on the field 1/2 the time and without an O-Line couldn't do anything. Stauskas plays the whole game and could set the nets on fire with no help - and the 3 googles were awesome but would be the worst if it weren't for our team.
4. Cord cutter - you already know, just make a damn decision
5. Get up bitch - that was supposed to be the MSU team that won the championship and had the most talent Izzo had ever assembled; and we owned them. Plus, Matthews laughing in Ward's face makes that line even more iconic.
1. JT was short - without a doubt. I think if this call was reversed then the entire trajectory of the football program would be on the elite level.
2. 2019 - 2007 was great but Dantonio hadn't shown his ass like he had by 2019. It was extremely satisfying to plaster them after hearing all summer from MSU fans that they would be great.
3. Free throw line, but not very confident in either.
4. Watch paint dry
5. Dantonio - I wouldn't be nearly as satisfied if Izzo's program crashed and burned, so it has to be Dantonio
I'm sure you felt the same way about this when wall street was bailed out during the housing crisis - to sit here and say individuals are the only ones who partake in dumb financial decisions then wait for the government to bail them out is absurd.
Banks and insurance companies got billions of dollars from that bailout and now in this bill corporations are getting billions again. Strange though, because I would guess almost everyone of those CEO's and board members agree with you on this view point of the masses.
If that is the case, then the ball is way too far inside. If Bell is running an out at the top of the route, its open but that is not where the ball is thrown either.
I think this is a case of Patterson not throwing his receiver open. The DB is in a trail position and Patterson can throw the out to the sideline or the flag to the pylon, but he puts it in a place that his receiver cannot adjust and catch.
He looks open but so is Bell - the reason this isn't a TD is because Patterson didn't throw it to the back pylon, he left it short. If this throw is to the back pylon with some touch, its an over the shoulder catch for a TD.
The read looks correct to me, just a bad throw that doesn't give his receiver a chance to make a play.
It's almost like these schools should use their millions of dollars to hire people with the skills to manage these personalities and make sure the team operates as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Coaches get paid millions to deal with this problem exactly. It is the coaches and the support staffs job to make sure these things don't happen. Should we really prevent kids from making money for their skills because the coaches hired by these schools can't manage the personalities?
I think this is a horrible take that completely ignores the current transfer portal climate.
And donors are already paying high school kids to go to certain colleges - kinda the whole reason Michigan fans bitch about Alabama and Clemson's recruiting tactics.
The defense (or at least aspects of it) have been figured out. Case in point is the motion Wisconsin ran on Saturday - they frequently motioned away from the play so the safeties would rotate; the safety rotating back to the deep middle would be running away from the play at the snap and would have to change momentum and come back to the line of scrimmage - not a way to win against Taylor or any Wisconsin RB of the last 25 years. I don't know that this approach was changed the entire game.
For Brown's D to work the way its supposed to, the D-Line has to be elite - we have had an elite (or very good) D-Line until the Indiana game last year. Since that game, this D has been torched by any team with decent offensive coaches.
Swinney went 9-3 in 2014 - his 6th full year as a coach. So 10-2 was clearly not his floor after his 4th full season. On top of that, you fail to mention that while Swinney's floor was 10-2 (according to you) his ceiling was the same. From 2011 - 2014 Swinney went 10-2 every year with the exception being 2014, where he went 9-3.
Clemson was good in a relatively weak ACC for Swinney's first 6 years, but never better than 10-2 in the regular season (he has performed MUCH better than Harbaugh in bowl games). Harbaugh's first 4 years are almost a mirror of Clemson, except we play in the same division as 1 of the 4 or 5 elite programs.
When giving a gift the tax is paid by the person giving the gift, not receiving it. They have to file an estate and gift tax return to claim it; the return shows exactly who is getting the gift and how much it is. But no, the recipient does not pay a cent in tax on a gift they receive.
It's not necessarily illegal - there is a gift exclusion for every individual of $14,000. Meaning anyone can give anyone else 14k without reporting anything to the IRS. So, in theory, every person (Husband and Wife each get 14k to give to anyone) can give a recruit 28,000 without having to report anything to the IRS or pay tax on it.
If the bagmen are working with enough donors (5 -10 families), then they can easily give a kid 300k without having to report anything.
The recruiting for viper makes more sense if Brown is looking at spread offenses and wants to go to something like the 404 Tight that Seth looked at in his most recent Neck Sharpies article. If we are going to have 2 vipers on the field for our base defense, we need to have at 4 - 6 guys who we feel comfortable playing for that position and having 10 tickets makes it more likely we'll hit on the number of guys we need.
On #3 - Ewing was an NBA for 14 years and I remember hearing the reason he took the Georgetown job was because it was clear he just wasn't going to get an NBA head coaching opportunity. Juwan has been coaching for 6 years and interviewed for openings last year and this year in the NBA.
While Ewing may do well at Georgetown and Howard may not here (if he is hired), its pretty clear the NBA does NOT view them as being on the same level as coaches.
The title of your post is CC: Billy Donlon. CC stands for coaching candidate last I knew. If you weren't suggesting him for the open coaching position, you should've titled your post differently.
You also state in your post that if he had stayed at Michigan we would've been worse than with Yaklich, but he would probably be hired based on his "respected" tenure at Wright St. Everything in your post is suggesting you think he is a candidate; just because you surround that opinion with fluff on if he made a bad decision leaving Michigan doesn't change how your post reads.
He was just hired by the University of Missouri at Kansas City. When he was available for EVERY other job available. He is slightly above Moser and WAY below the Yaklich line. Hiring him would be a fireable offense.
Johnny Dawkins did not do really well at Stanford. He made the NCAA tournament 1 time in 8 years. While that is better than Porter Moser at UC Loyola (1 time in 15 years), it is still pathetic and our sights should be set MUCH higher.
Is Gregg Marshall just not a possibility? He is clean and has been really good at Witchita St. even taking them to a Final Four. Michigan would be a huge jump in pay and prestige. He is only 56, so he could coach here for at least 10 years if everything works out.
Maybe I am just missing the boat on something, but he seems like he could check all the boxes and be a hire above the Yak line.
Mike White our of Florida is the other potential candidate I think would be above the Yak line; but I am more hesitant about him because I know almost nothing about him.
Gregg Marshall at Witchita St. - his star has fallen some the last couple years, but he is clean and would be a solid hire.
Tony Bennett at UVA - no idea if he would leave right after winning a NC, but throwing a bunch of money at him might do the trick. He would be a homerun hire and is most likely a pipe dream.
Mike White at Florida - he was spoken of very highly before our NCAA game with them this year.
Outside of Yaklich and Washington, I think these are some semi-realistic candidates (Bennett was discussed for the UCLA job, so leaving UVA isnt out of the question) that we could look at.
Agreed to an extent - Burke is contributing on bad teams and Stauskas is still in the league. While this is bad for top 10 picks, both came out in terrible draft classes. In stronger classes, they would probably have been picked in the late teens.
McGary is an odd case because he was getting playing time and looked good but got injured and appears to enjoy extra curricular activities a bit too much. He's more of a what could have been than a flat out bust.
DJ is still on an NBA team and has a chance to try to contribute next year. As a pick in the late teens, that is really all you hope for; most guys picked after 10 do not contribute much to high level teams.
On the flip side, LeVert looked like the Nets best player in the playoffs. Hardaway is a main scorer on bad teams. Wagner is too early to tell. GRIII is still in the NBA as a 2nd round pick, which is good. Walton and Robinson have both gotten cups of coffee in the NBA as UDFAs with Robinson in line for more.
That is a lot of guys in the NBA for a coach that doesnt recruit 5-star one and done players, so it would be smart of the NBA to get a look at the players going through his program.
From what I've read it is 100% a mental thing as reports have been that Matthews makes about 85-90% of his attempts in practice but 65% in games (I'm sure fatigue plays an issue as well).
Ben Wallace suffered the same problem where he had good form and was great in practice, but just couldn't make them in games. I imagine making free throws in a stadium of 10 - 30k people is more difficult that we like to think as fans. Simpson's improvement this season gives me hope that Beilein can get any player to be acceptable-ish from the line.
No benefit to playing MSU a 4th time. We win, great but we still have to deal with MSU slaps and we are 1-3 vs. them this year. Lose... I don't even want to think about it.
Playing Duke might be a tougher game, but it would be the first game all year where the pressure wasn't on us. When we played Villanova and UNC with little to no pressure, we were excellent. I could see something similar happening as no one would expect us to win, so we'd play loose.
If we're out, why the hell would we want MSU to win? I don't like Duke either but no alums from Duke are in Michigan and we don't have to hear about them other than on ESPN.
You can sort on Torvik to show only postseason games.
I assume by March you mean the Big Ten and NCAA Tournaments, so post season should get you what you are looking for.
A quick look has Michigan at 32-10 in post season games since 1/1/2013 - good for about a 76% win percentage. Villanova appears to be the best at 30-7, about 81% win percentage.
B - 6 Q1 wins is impressive for a bubble team but they are the only ones with a losing record in Q2. Still ranked highest off of Q1 record and having the best win.
A & D - Toss up between the two but went with A since they have a comparable Q1 record with a better Q2 record and no Q3 losses.
E & C - neither team should be in tournament but went with E even though they have an abysmal Q1 record, they have a better Q2 record and don't have any Q3 losses. Plus, better overall record with more Q1 and Q2 games.
That's the biggest problem with the way the team is constructed now - they have no money left to make the team better and drafting a player in the 15 - 20 range that is going to have a significantly positive impact in the next 3 years is really difficult and unlikely. Even the people who like what the team is doing (like Kelser) admit the team is a piece or two away; but the Pistons have no reasonable means to get that piece.
The Pistons are capped out and will only have minimum cap space next year because (I think) only Ish Smith is a free agent after this year. On top of that, there are a ton of teams with cap space this year who will miss out on the top free agents and then overpay the mid-level guys to show their fans they didn't come away empty handed.
The Pistons are stuck in a spot where they are not good enough to compete for the east, they don't have exciting young players to develop, they don't have money to sign a big free agent, and they won't have a top draft pick to get an exciting young player. They have stuck themselves in NBA purgatory where they will constantly be competing to make the playoffs and for not much else. That is why so many people wanted to trade everyone and start over, because this team doesn't really have a plausible way to compete for a championship.
Mostly because he brought Rutgers in for the sole purpose of making himself and his friends more money. Money that is made on the backs of athletes who aren't allowed to benefit from their skills on an open market the way its done with every other skill set in the country.
Also, because when he brought in Rutgers and Maryland he gave MSU back-to-back home games in our rivalry. The 2nd largest rivalry in the Big Ten. That is asinine. On top of that, he gave Northwestern back-to-back home games vs. us in the same year. They sold a story of something having to give but to dick us over twice in the schedule while no other team was dicked over once, yeah, thats why he is so disliked by UM fans.
Overall, I agree with this and would add that not having an alpha scorer (a guy who can get take the ball during a cold stretch and get us points) has hurt us this season. Our good teams have consistently had this guy (Burke, Stauskas, LeVert, Walton, Rahkman) - we desperately need this guy because our offense often has cold stretches we cant seem to pull out of.
That said, MSU was 19-28 on 2-pt FGs. Thats why we lost the game. If we hold them to 50% (still over our season average), we win the game.
You're comparing apples and oranges - the Rose Bowl is for the Big Ten champ, if MSU wins the Big Ten tourney, then they deserve a 2 seed (maybe a 1 seed depending on their games against us).
However, if its an at-large bid to the Rose Bowl then absolutely injuries are taken into account by the bowl committee selecting the teams. If MSU loses 3 more games (2 to us and 1 in the conference tourney), then the committee may drop them a seed line due to Wards injury since they aren't the same team without him. The committee places a high value on recent play, correct or not.
We lost to Penn State - we deserve to be moved down in the rankings (Nevada doesn't deserve to be there, but they didn't lose so they move up). However, rankings are not a factor come NCAA tournament seeding, so they don't really have much impact on anything other than TV promotions.
MSU moving up - the rankings are about what have you done for me, not what are you going to do for me. If Ward is out for the NCAA tournament it should affect their seeding as the committee looks at those issues.
Nevada - they were ranked in the top-10 in the beginning of the year and have only 1 loss. That is the only reason they are in the top-10. The justice is that they are projected to be a 4 or 5 seed in most brackets, which seems more appropriate with their schedule.
1) Jordan Murphy bully ball and missing open shots. Murphy committed about 7 charges with only 1 called in the game at UM. If the refs let him do that all game, he could have another great game that keeps Minn close.
2) Poorly. We have X and Matthews to switch off the Winston duties on D. Make life tough for Winston and they have... no real threats except McQuaid shooting 3s. If we play with the energy we had against Maryland, I don't see how we lose to them at home. Breslin is another question due to the refs.
3) Probably not - Purdue only has 3 losses and a much easier schedule than us; plus, Maryland hasn't lost at home yet this season. Thats a tough game. I think we can get a 1-seed if we win out and win two games with one against Purdue, MSU, or Wisconsin in the B1G tourney. If we finish 29-4, with 4 quadrant 1 or 2 losses then I think we can snag a 1-seed, but its not a guarantee or even a likelihood. We would need help from some other teams.
Stars matter in total - not if you choose one individual recruit and say he stinks based on being a 3-star. If you compare all 3, 4, and 5-stars over an entire recruiting year (all schools) then they are a very good indicator; trying to lower that to a single schools class or single recruit will not work and has the ability to be wildly incorrect on individual players and classes as a whole. Michigan has already proven this with kids like Metellus, Paye, Uche, and several others.
Star gazers are terrible to deal with because they try to lower the sample size to 1-5 kids and talk about how terrible a class is because of that; in reality, the coaches at UM have a much better chance of being right than some scouts who cant get jobs at any major universities. Overall, the scouts are right in their rankings for the majority of kids, but not on such a small sample size.
Recent Comments
Since the Big Ten suspended "Michigan's Head Coach", couldn't the university "demote" Harbaugh to an analyst role for the next X number of months, "hire" Jack Harbaugh or literally anyone as "Head Coach" and Jim could be on the sideline acting in any capacity he wants? Only downside - Jim couldn't coach players during the week, but maybe just do this on Friday before The Game. Big Ten didn't punish Jim Harbaugh, so use it against them.
Afaik, there is no limit to the money you can spend on analysts and also no rule against what analysts can do on gameday.
This doesn't matter for this season - NCAA has not issued a Notice of Allegations yet and by the NCAA's own bylaws, Michigan has 90 days to respond to that. Meaning, even if the NCAA issued the notice on Monday, Michigan has until February to respond.
No punishment from the NCAA can come before Michigan responds to the notice.
If this is true, then this is 100% absolutely in person scouting being done. Furthermore, its not some iPhone video of the sidelines, its from staffers of Big Ten teams - much more useful and giving a much larger competitive advantage.
If true - head coaches from every team who was a part of the plan to steal Michigan's signals should be suspended indefinitely without an investigation... I mean, think of the children!!!!! (JK, in reality I think this is all dumb and we should just move to helmet communication to get rid of it)
Wow! I didn't realize the investigation doesn't technically start until the Notice of Allegations is delivered. If that is the case, I just don't see how the presidents, ADs, coaches, and Big Ten can be so short sighted.
This leads me to 2 thoughts - the Big Ten knows more than the public and the evidence is damning that Michigan/Harbaugh broke the rules & are going to get severe punishment from the NCAA (not sure how an extension would still be on the table if this is true as Michigan would have to have received the evidence if other Big Ten schools have).
or
The other schools hate Michigan so much that they are willing to set a precedent that will completely screw them in the future just to screw Michigan out of a 3rd straight title/playoff.
If the Big Ten is suspending Harbaugh pending the outcome of the NCAA investigation and the NCAA investigation comes back with a couple Level II violations - wouldn't that set the precedent that the Big Ten has to suspend every head coach that comes under investigation by the NCAA until the investigation is completed?
That seems like a really slippery slope - if OSU comes under investigation for, idk, offering money to recruits to not visit UM or to take officials to OSU, then Ryan Day would have to be suspended until the investigation is completed. This would lead to every single program in the Big Ten getting their head coach suspended as they all do illegal things that would be Level II violations.
Michigan won by…
45-23.
Michigan won by 22. In Columbus. On a clear, sunny day.
On the 1 drive OSU decided to play it safe and not give up a big play, Michigan went on an 8 minute drive ending in a TD. OSU COULD NOT STOP US IN THE 2nd HALF.
This was not a one score game determined by a play that was extremely unlikely to happen. This was not a game where Michigan hung around based on bad reffing or turnovers or dropped passes or lucky breaks. This was a game where Michigan DOMINATED the 2nd half - just like they did to everyone else on their schedule.
Michigan was clearly the better team.
While I agree that both can be successful there are some factors that helped Dantonio build his program that I don't think Tucker (or any near term MSU coach) can rely on.
The biggest one (that I think matters the most) is that Michigan had Rich Rod & Hoke running their program for 7 years of the Dantonio era. In those 7 years, Dantonio went 6-1 against Michigan. In his games against Carr & Harbaugh, Dantonio went 2-4 and the last 2 years against Harbaugh, MSU was outscored 65 - 17. As soon as Harbaugh began at Michigan, the programs were immediately equal even though Dantonio had owned the rivalry (and the Big Ten outside of OSU) for 5ish years.
Dantonio was a good coach who was the perfect fit at MSU. Whether Tucker is a good coach or not, I don't think he will reach the heights of Dantonio for the simple fact that our program is no longer a tire fire.
I would rather B, but IMO only in a home-and-home situation - I don't want to play another neutral field game like Bama in '13 or Florida in '17.
However, while a loss to Texas in the non-con won't keep us out of the playoffs if we beat OSU and win the Big Ten, it could keep us out if we bookended 10 wins with losses to both Texas and OSU. If we schedule cupcakes and then lose a competitive game to OSU - we still have a shot at the playoffs at 11-1. Even if we lose to a what end up being #1 OSU & #2 Texas by 1 point each, our shot at the playoffs are gone because no one with 2 losses will be in a 4 team playoff. If the playoffs expand, then we have a different conversation.
So while most fans probably prefer option B, I understand why coaches/ADs would choose option A and give their team a greater shot at the playoffs.
My main problem with the Schoonmaker throw is he is all alone - just loft it up to the corner and let him run to it, no one is catching him and its an easy TD. Cade tried to pinpoint and missed, it didn't need to be that difficult.
The Sainristil throw - during the game, I thought it should be a catch; on rewatch, it looks like a bad throw. Sainristil has a yard separation on his guy and is running a basic slant (an easy pitch and catch compared to some other throws). A good throw at chest level and Sainristil has a chance to make a play, but Cade misses badly.
The All throw - the ball is in front of All - if Cade was expecting him to sit down and All didn't, the throw should have been behind All. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like another inaccurate throw.
I may be missing something, but it definitely seems like something changed after the targeting hit.
While we finished 36th overall in Defensive SP+ last year, I would guess that those numbers have some preseason baked in due to COVID and the lack of games. Preseason expectations being factored in would definitely have helped our defense finish last year ranked higher than they should have been.
You are spot on here and I agree completely.
Overall, I don't think this current team is less talented than 2014 or 2015, but man do they seem poorly coached and to have glaring weaknesses in the roster.
Yes, I agree there was a lot of talent but was anyone ready to declare those players as being the foundation of a team competing for the playoffs during the 2014 season? I would argue even with the positive things shown, no one was ready to say that.
And we're in the same spot now. We have some holes on the team (CB, DT) but have tons of talent that is being questioned as to whether or not it can be the foundation of a team competing for the playoffs. Could a new coach take this team to the heights Harbaugh took the players from that 2014 team to?
I think there is some revisionist history for 2015 - coming out of 2014 we had no QB, the RBs were uninspiring, the WRs were difficult to judge because of how terrible the OLine was. TE was the only offensive position anyone could feel good about and that was because of Butt.
The defense coming out of 2014 was also tough to judge because of how much they had to play while the offense constantly stunk but I don't think people were very high on a lot of the guys who ended up performing superbly for Harbaugh. They showed potential but I don't think anyone expected a new coach to take the D to those new heights so quickly.
All of this is to say - a new coach could take some guys who haven't looked great and make them look much better in a new system or with new coaching or a new environment; and I think we feel a lot better about several position groups right now than we did in 2014 (RBs, OLine, WRs, LBs).
7-1 but I could see anything from 8-0 to 4-4.
Harbaugh wins home games vs. everyone who is not OSU. Minnesota is the biggest question mark in my mind, but I think we will win a shoot out vs them, something like 42 - 38.
Wouldn't there be the same argument for Warriner though? Except with Warriner, there are not as many projections. Warriner coached several high draft picks with OSU, got 4 lineman drafted in the 2020 draft (including a first rounder) and has another lineman who is projected to be a first rounder.
I'm not saying Quinn isn't a good coach or doesn't have accomplishments; its just that Warriner has as many or more accomplishments.
Seth specifically points out that the 16 play drive could've ended on play 4 with a long bomb to Collins if Shea had seen him. I don't think you can put that on Gattis. On top of that, Shea missed 2 open deep throws on the first drive of the game. The lack of big plays appears to be a QB thing more than an offensive design issue.
On top of that, Alabama played specifically to not allow big plays - at times, you have to take what the defense gives you.
That being said, our offense does need to improve in the red zone. We settle for FGs far too often when we get into the red zone, even against mediocre teams. I think having a QB who knows how to run a zone read and is willing to keep the ball will significantly improve our red zone offense.
I disagree with the assessment that Brown's plans were diagnosed and OSU had the correct counter easily - especially with the plays shown in the article.
Several of the plays shown were a blown switch coverage in the secondary - LaVert Hill switched his coverage twice in the plays and the other player (Dax Hill/Ambry Thomas) did not have the same recognition of the play and were late to switch. I think this is on the coaching (secondary coaching in particular) but not on Brown's scheme. If the players switch appropriately, 2 of the plays shown in favor of Day are dead to rights - its a coaching problem, but not a scheme problem imo.
Also, 2 of the plays shown appear to be Dax Hill getting got - he was a freshman who had started 2 games and only because of injury. Good on them for finding a weakness, but not exactly evidence that Day outschemed Brown.
Lastly, the tempo one where Thomas wasn't ready for the snap - I honestly have no idea how you put that on Brown's scheme. It was a good trick that would hopefully only work once and was dangerously close to having multiple guys moving at the snap (I believe it should have been an illegal procedure penalty as both the TE and RB were moving/not set).
I think this was much more about the jimmy's and joe's than it was about the X's and O's.
1. 2013 - the team was so talented and never knew who would go off that game. However, the 2017 team was damn fun to watch down the stretch - if they had been better throughout the season, I would go with them. 2013 did it the whole year.
2. 2016 - I don't think we would have won the national championship in 2006 or 2016, but I do think 2008 - 2014 are still bad regardless of the 2006 game. If we win 2016 I think we are talking about Harbaugh and the program as one of the 6 or 7 best in the country right now.
3. No
4. Jordan Poole - I think Howard would've let him create more and would have been able to connect to him better than Beilein. I think Howard would've brought out the best in Poole and we would've seen this years team possibly win the B10 because of it.
5. Izzo - his incessant whining is so annoying; plus, I think he is a scumbag when it comes to player discipline, who he recruits/protects, etc. Just time for him to go
1. 2015 MSU - this game would've ended MSU as soon as UM got a real coach. App State sucked, but that team and the coming years were going to happen either way because of the end of Carr's regime.
2. Hello heisman
3. Stauskas - Hart was only on the field 1/2 the time and without an O-Line couldn't do anything. Stauskas plays the whole game and could set the nets on fire with no help - and the 3 googles were awesome but would be the worst if it weren't for our team.
4. Cord cutter - you already know, just make a damn decision
5. Get up bitch - that was supposed to be the MSU team that won the championship and had the most talent Izzo had ever assembled; and we owned them. Plus, Matthews laughing in Ward's face makes that line even more iconic.
1. JT was short - without a doubt. I think if this call was reversed then the entire trajectory of the football program would be on the elite level.
2. 2019 - 2007 was great but Dantonio hadn't shown his ass like he had by 2019. It was extremely satisfying to plaster them after hearing all summer from MSU fans that they would be great.
3. Free throw line, but not very confident in either.
4. Watch paint dry
5. Dantonio - I wouldn't be nearly as satisfied if Izzo's program crashed and burned, so it has to be Dantonio
I'm sure you felt the same way about this when wall street was bailed out during the housing crisis - to sit here and say individuals are the only ones who partake in dumb financial decisions then wait for the government to bail them out is absurd.
Banks and insurance companies got billions of dollars from that bailout and now in this bill corporations are getting billions again. Strange though, because I would guess almost everyone of those CEO's and board members agree with you on this view point of the masses.
If that is the case, then the ball is way too far inside. If Bell is running an out at the top of the route, its open but that is not where the ball is thrown either.
I think this is a case of Patterson not throwing his receiver open. The DB is in a trail position and Patterson can throw the out to the sideline or the flag to the pylon, but he puts it in a place that his receiver cannot adjust and catch.
He looks open but so is Bell - the reason this isn't a TD is because Patterson didn't throw it to the back pylon, he left it short. If this throw is to the back pylon with some touch, its an over the shoulder catch for a TD.
The read looks correct to me, just a bad throw that doesn't give his receiver a chance to make a play.
It's almost like these schools should use their millions of dollars to hire people with the skills to manage these personalities and make sure the team operates as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Coaches get paid millions to deal with this problem exactly. It is the coaches and the support staffs job to make sure these things don't happen. Should we really prevent kids from making money for their skills because the coaches hired by these schools can't manage the personalities?
I think this is a horrible take that completely ignores the current transfer portal climate.
And donors are already paying high school kids to go to certain colleges - kinda the whole reason Michigan fans bitch about Alabama and Clemson's recruiting tactics.
The defense (or at least aspects of it) have been figured out. Case in point is the motion Wisconsin ran on Saturday - they frequently motioned away from the play so the safeties would rotate; the safety rotating back to the deep middle would be running away from the play at the snap and would have to change momentum and come back to the line of scrimmage - not a way to win against Taylor or any Wisconsin RB of the last 25 years. I don't know that this approach was changed the entire game.
For Brown's D to work the way its supposed to, the D-Line has to be elite - we have had an elite (or very good) D-Line until the Indiana game last year. Since that game, this D has been torched by any team with decent offensive coaches.
Swinney went 9-3 in 2014 - his 6th full year as a coach. So 10-2 was clearly not his floor after his 4th full season. On top of that, you fail to mention that while Swinney's floor was 10-2 (according to you) his ceiling was the same. From 2011 - 2014 Swinney went 10-2 every year with the exception being 2014, where he went 9-3.
Clemson was good in a relatively weak ACC for Swinney's first 6 years, but never better than 10-2 in the regular season (he has performed MUCH better than Harbaugh in bowl games). Harbaugh's first 4 years are almost a mirror of Clemson, except we play in the same division as 1 of the 4 or 5 elite programs.
When giving a gift the tax is paid by the person giving the gift, not receiving it. They have to file an estate and gift tax return to claim it; the return shows exactly who is getting the gift and how much it is. But no, the recipient does not pay a cent in tax on a gift they receive.
It's not necessarily illegal - there is a gift exclusion for every individual of $14,000. Meaning anyone can give anyone else 14k without reporting anything to the IRS. So, in theory, every person (Husband and Wife each get 14k to give to anyone) can give a recruit 28,000 without having to report anything to the IRS or pay tax on it.
If the bagmen are working with enough donors (5 -10 families), then they can easily give a kid 300k without having to report anything.
The recruiting for viper makes more sense if Brown is looking at spread offenses and wants to go to something like the 404 Tight that Seth looked at in his most recent Neck Sharpies article. If we are going to have 2 vipers on the field for our base defense, we need to have at 4 - 6 guys who we feel comfortable playing for that position and having 10 tickets makes it more likely we'll hit on the number of guys we need.
On #3 - Ewing was an NBA for 14 years and I remember hearing the reason he took the Georgetown job was because it was clear he just wasn't going to get an NBA head coaching opportunity. Juwan has been coaching for 6 years and interviewed for openings last year and this year in the NBA.
While Ewing may do well at Georgetown and Howard may not here (if he is hired), its pretty clear the NBA does NOT view them as being on the same level as coaches.
You're right, he shouldn't be above Moser in a coaching search, but neither should be real candidates for us.
The title of your post is CC: Billy Donlon. CC stands for coaching candidate last I knew. If you weren't suggesting him for the open coaching position, you should've titled your post differently.
You also state in your post that if he had stayed at Michigan we would've been worse than with Yaklich, but he would probably be hired based on his "respected" tenure at Wright St. Everything in your post is suggesting you think he is a candidate; just because you surround that opinion with fluff on if he made a bad decision leaving Michigan doesn't change how your post reads.
He was just hired by the University of Missouri at Kansas City. When he was available for EVERY other job available. He is slightly above Moser and WAY below the Yaklich line. Hiring him would be a fireable offense.
Johnny Dawkins did not do really well at Stanford. He made the NCAA tournament 1 time in 8 years. While that is better than Porter Moser at UC Loyola (1 time in 15 years), it is still pathetic and our sights should be set MUCH higher.
Is Gregg Marshall just not a possibility? He is clean and has been really good at Witchita St. even taking them to a Final Four. Michigan would be a huge jump in pay and prestige. He is only 56, so he could coach here for at least 10 years if everything works out.
Maybe I am just missing the boat on something, but he seems like he could check all the boxes and be a hire above the Yak line.
Mike White our of Florida is the other potential candidate I think would be above the Yak line; but I am more hesitant about him because I know almost nothing about him.
Gregg Marshall at Witchita St. - his star has fallen some the last couple years, but he is clean and would be a solid hire.
Tony Bennett at UVA - no idea if he would leave right after winning a NC, but throwing a bunch of money at him might do the trick. He would be a homerun hire and is most likely a pipe dream.
Mike White at Florida - he was spoken of very highly before our NCAA game with them this year.
Outside of Yaklich and Washington, I think these are some semi-realistic candidates (Bennett was discussed for the UCLA job, so leaving UVA isnt out of the question) that we could look at.
Agreed to an extent - Burke is contributing on bad teams and Stauskas is still in the league. While this is bad for top 10 picks, both came out in terrible draft classes. In stronger classes, they would probably have been picked in the late teens.
McGary is an odd case because he was getting playing time and looked good but got injured and appears to enjoy extra curricular activities a bit too much. He's more of a what could have been than a flat out bust.
DJ is still on an NBA team and has a chance to try to contribute next year. As a pick in the late teens, that is really all you hope for; most guys picked after 10 do not contribute much to high level teams.
On the flip side, LeVert looked like the Nets best player in the playoffs. Hardaway is a main scorer on bad teams. Wagner is too early to tell. GRIII is still in the NBA as a 2nd round pick, which is good. Walton and Robinson have both gotten cups of coffee in the NBA as UDFAs with Robinson in line for more.
That is a lot of guys in the NBA for a coach that doesnt recruit 5-star one and done players, so it would be smart of the NBA to get a look at the players going through his program.
…
D. Bush going in the top 10
Gary falls to the 20s (deep draft, some questions, still going to be good in NFL)
D. Long going no later than 50 - he is a great cover corner and he has been getting LOTS of talk
From what I've read it is 100% a mental thing as reports have been that Matthews makes about 85-90% of his attempts in practice but 65% in games (I'm sure fatigue plays an issue as well).
Ben Wallace suffered the same problem where he had good form and was great in practice, but just couldn't make them in games. I imagine making free throws in a stadium of 10 - 30k people is more difficult that we like to think as fans. Simpson's improvement this season gives me hope that Beilein can get any player to be acceptable-ish from the line.
No…
Duke either way.
No benefit to playing MSU a 4th time. We win, great but we still have to deal with MSU slaps and we are 1-3 vs. them this year. Lose... I don't even want to think about it.
Playing Duke might be a tougher game, but it would be the first game all year where the pressure wasn't on us. When we played Villanova and UNC with little to no pressure, we were excellent. I could see something similar happening as no one would expect us to win, so we'd play loose.
If we're out, why the hell would we want MSU to win? I don't like Duke either but no alums from Duke are in Michigan and we don't have to hear about them other than on ESPN.
You can sort on Torvik to show only postseason games.
I assume by March you mean the Big Ten and NCAA Tournaments, so post season should get you what you are looking for.
A quick look has Michigan at 32-10 in post season games since 1/1/2013 - good for about a 76% win percentage. Villanova appears to be the best at 30-7, about 81% win percentage.
C - has the 2…
C>D>A>B>E
C - has the 2 best wins, the best losses, and is undefeated in Q2.
D & A - are a toss-up but D has the better losses and swap out a Q2 loss with a Q1 loss. Could go either way because I think they are very close.
B - great Q1 record but the loss to #105 is really bad, plus they have 2 Q2 losses
E - has the worst Q2 record
B - 6 Q1 wins is…
B>A>D>E>C
B - 6 Q1 wins is impressive for a bubble team but they are the only ones with a losing record in Q2. Still ranked highest off of Q1 record and having the best win.
A & D - Toss up between the two but went with A since they have a comparable Q1 record with a better Q2 record and no Q3 losses.
E & C - neither team should be in tournament but went with E even though they have an abysmal Q1 record, they have a better Q2 record and don't have any Q3 losses. Plus, better overall record with more Q1 and Q2 games.
That's the biggest problem with the way the team is constructed now - they have no money left to make the team better and drafting a player in the 15 - 20 range that is going to have a significantly positive impact in the next 3 years is really difficult and unlikely. Even the people who like what the team is doing (like Kelser) admit the team is a piece or two away; but the Pistons have no reasonable means to get that piece.
The Pistons are capped out and will only have minimum cap space next year because (I think) only Ish Smith is a free agent after this year. On top of that, there are a ton of teams with cap space this year who will miss out on the top free agents and then overpay the mid-level guys to show their fans they didn't come away empty handed.
The Pistons are stuck in a spot where they are not good enough to compete for the east, they don't have exciting young players to develop, they don't have money to sign a big free agent, and they won't have a top draft pick to get an exciting young player. They have stuck themselves in NBA purgatory where they will constantly be competing to make the playoffs and for not much else. That is why so many people wanted to trade everyone and start over, because this team doesn't really have a plausible way to compete for a championship.
Mostly because he brought Rutgers in for the sole purpose of making himself and his friends more money. Money that is made on the backs of athletes who aren't allowed to benefit from their skills on an open market the way its done with every other skill set in the country.
Also, because when he brought in Rutgers and Maryland he gave MSU back-to-back home games in our rivalry. The 2nd largest rivalry in the Big Ten. That is asinine. On top of that, he gave Northwestern back-to-back home games vs. us in the same year. They sold a story of something having to give but to dick us over twice in the schedule while no other team was dicked over once, yeah, thats why he is so disliked by UM fans.
Overall, I agree with this and would add that not having an alpha scorer (a guy who can get take the ball during a cold stretch and get us points) has hurt us this season. Our good teams have consistently had this guy (Burke, Stauskas, LeVert, Walton, Rahkman) - we desperately need this guy because our offense often has cold stretches we cant seem to pull out of.
That said, MSU was 19-28 on 2-pt FGs. Thats why we lost the game. If we hold them to 50% (still over our season average), we win the game.
You're comparing apples and oranges - the Rose Bowl is for the Big Ten champ, if MSU wins the Big Ten tourney, then they deserve a 2 seed (maybe a 1 seed depending on their games against us).
However, if its an at-large bid to the Rose Bowl then absolutely injuries are taken into account by the bowl committee selecting the teams. If MSU loses 3 more games (2 to us and 1 in the conference tourney), then the committee may drop them a seed line due to Wards injury since they aren't the same team without him. The committee places a high value on recent play, correct or not.
We lost to Penn State - we deserve to be moved down in the rankings (Nevada doesn't deserve to be there, but they didn't lose so they move up). However, rankings are not a factor come NCAA tournament seeding, so they don't really have much impact on anything other than TV promotions.
MSU moving up - the rankings are about what have you done for me, not what are you going to do for me. If Ward is out for the NCAA tournament it should affect their seeding as the committee looks at those issues.
Nevada - they were ranked in the top-10 in the beginning of the year and have only 1 loss. That is the only reason they are in the top-10. The justice is that they are projected to be a 4 or 5 seed in most brackets, which seems more appropriate with their schedule.
1) Jordan Murphy bully ball and missing open shots. Murphy committed about 7 charges with only 1 called in the game at UM. If the refs let him do that all game, he could have another great game that keeps Minn close.
2) Poorly. We have X and Matthews to switch off the Winston duties on D. Make life tough for Winston and they have... no real threats except McQuaid shooting 3s. If we play with the energy we had against Maryland, I don't see how we lose to them at home. Breslin is another question due to the refs.
3) Probably not - Purdue only has 3 losses and a much easier schedule than us; plus, Maryland hasn't lost at home yet this season. Thats a tough game. I think we can get a 1-seed if we win out and win two games with one against Purdue, MSU, or Wisconsin in the B1G tourney. If we finish 29-4, with 4 quadrant 1 or 2 losses then I think we can snag a 1-seed, but its not a guarantee or even a likelihood. We would need help from some other teams.
Stars matter in total - not if you choose one individual recruit and say he stinks based on being a 3-star. If you compare all 3, 4, and 5-stars over an entire recruiting year (all schools) then they are a very good indicator; trying to lower that to a single schools class or single recruit will not work and has the ability to be wildly incorrect on individual players and classes as a whole. Michigan has already proven this with kids like Metellus, Paye, Uche, and several others.
Star gazers are terrible to deal with because they try to lower the sample size to 1-5 kids and talk about how terrible a class is because of that; in reality, the coaches at UM have a much better chance of being right than some scouts who cant get jobs at any major universities. Overall, the scouts are right in their rankings for the majority of kids, but not on such a small sample size.