Current Texas backup QB Sherrod Harris may be considering a transfer, according to several sources, including the Dallas Morning News. Harris is a true sophomore who would have to sit one year, and be eligible to play in 2009 and 2010. A likely target would be Michigan, with an offense that fits his skills and a dearth of quarterbacks.

Harris is an exception student-athlete, who graduated with a high school GPA of 3.96. He was a run-pass threat in high school, described as similar to Antonio Bass (slightly more developed as a passer, with slightly less athleticism). At Texas, he has been limited due to injury and depth chart, and has yet to attempt a pass (despite playing in two games in fall 2007).

Harris is not allowed to contact school of interest until he receives his release. Texas coach Mack Brown stated that if any player approaches him regarding transfer, a release will be granted.

Posted under Personnel

First and foremost, I am glad the Athletic Department has gone back to using yellow student shirts after the (horrible) year of blue in 2005. The yellow looks infinitely better, as documented by the Hoover Street Rag (also an interesting post on other points, and I generally agree with it). However, the new issue I raise is the task of actually getting students to wear them.

The TShirt Option
The first mistake the administration makes in this respect is allowing the purchase of a shirt to be optional with a student ticket purchase. By simply bundling the shirt with the tickets – no option – the department would guarantee that everyone in the student section at least has access to one maize shirt. At the very least the option to buy the shirt on the ticket order form could be checked by default – I would much rather have students accidentally buy the shirt than accidentally not buy it (which I did in both 2004 and 2005 – I didn’t bother buying the terrible blue thing in 2005 after I mistakenly didn’t order it originally).

Maize Outs
Another area in which the athletic department fails is marking a select few student tickets (last year, it was two games) with the “Maize Out” distinction. In the student section, every game should be a maize out. IF the department would like to mark tickets in other sections, by all means go ahead (I don’t know if they currently do, but by the results of past maize outs, I would assume not). Telling students that a couple games will be maize outs gives the impression that other trips to the Big House have no unofficial dress code, when in fact they should.

The Greek Community
Aside from arriving any time after 7:00 in the first quarter, and leaving in the mid-third the Greek Community at Michigan also serves as a detriment to student section glory. I’m not talking about the seemingly endless supply of Mike Hart and Tom Brady (who they hadn’t even heard of before Super Bowl 38) jerseys available at AEPi and Pike fraternity houses, but rather the “Show Your Letters” shirts that are always worn in the fall by Greeks. Most (all?) chapters require their members to wear these shirts on football Saturdays, and they are always blue (or in some cases, pink for sororities). The athletic department should reach out to the Interfraternal Council and the Panhellenic organization to work toward having shirts that accomplish the missions of both the Greeks (advertising) and the AD (uniform yellowness).

Maize Jerseys
Finally, I know it is not a popular idea among many Michigan fans (particularly the traditionalists), but a maize jersey for the football team (for example, during a maize out night game, novl idea, I know) would go a long way toward assisting in a maized out student section with regularity. Those same people who insist on wearing their OMG TOM BRADY jersey to the game would have an OMG SAM MCGUFFIE option that would not hinder the chromatic continuity of the student section.

Posted under Analysis

I don’t intend for this blog to become a link factory, but I think this is an important read.

It sounds like Boren has huge issues with the new coaching staff.

Posted under Personnel

Ending two days of speculation, Michigan head coach Rich Rodriguez confirmed at his press conference today that Justin Boren has left the Michigan football team. Boren was projected as a starter at one of the guard positions in the fall, and was likely the best lineman on the team. This defection leaves the team dangerously thin along the line. Boren’s father, Mike, played for Bo in the early 80s, and his brother Zach is a 2009 defensive end/fullback/nose guard prospect.

Justin Boren

Boren is the latest in a long line of players leaving the Michigan program since Rodriguez was announced as head coach. Wide receivers Mario Manningham and Adrian Arrington opted to forgo their senior seasons to enter the NFL draft. Quarterback Ryan Mallett transfered to Arkansas, and linemen Alex Mitchell and Jeremy Cuilla left for personal reasons.

Posted under Personnel

The Board.

Thanks to a couple guys who e-mailed me about new prospects, and always to Brian, for unearthing a few I hadn’t heard about yet. I checked out these guys and added the ones I found to meet the arbitrary criteria I established for the board.

Added:
OH DE Devon Curtis. A high school teammate of Patrick Omameh.

New Information:
VA QB Kevin Newsome will not play QB if he goes to WVU. Track article on Newsome and HS teammate Javanti Sparrow.
MD LB Jelani Jenkins may want to stay closer to home, according to his coach.
MN WR Bryce McNeal on the GopherHole.
UT OL Xavier Sua’Filo is committed to the ESPNU Under Armour game.
MI DT William Campbell and PA LB Dorian Bell are committed to the Army game.
NC S Devonte Holloman fluff from Yahoo.
TX S Craig Loston is down to two schools. I don’t think either of them is Michigan.

Etc.: Toledo Blade article on the QB situation. Recruiting fluff from the Freep. Administration Op-Ed responding to the Carticle.

Posted under Recruiting

One of the great allures of the bowl season is being able to see evenly-matched teams duke it out on a neutral site. However, is that perception or reality? Of course, the teams aren’t always evenly matched (see USC v. Illinois), nor is the site ever truly neutral (see USC v. Illinois). Fans of the SEC are always quick to cite their good record in bowl games (and any other stat that perpetuates the OMG SEC AWESOMEZ myth). What they are failing to mention is that the SEC has a de facto home game for many of their games. What other conferences are favored? Let’s take a look.

2008 bowl season winning percentage by conference:

Average Distance from Bowl Site (in miles as the crow flies) tells us, on average, how far each conference team had to travel to get to their game. However, this doesn’t tell us the whole story. If two teams are both very far from the bowl in which they will be playing, there is no real home field advantage ceded for either one. To give a better idea of home-field advantage, it would be better to look at how much location may favor one team over the other. Delta distance measures how much closer to bowl site a team is over their opponent. The conference numbers are sums of all of these (in miles as the crow flies). As you can see, the PAC-10 and SEC are heavily favored by this, as is the Mountain West conference. Perhaps not coincidentally, these have the highest win percentages of any conference. Of note is the fact that every single SEC team had a positive Delta distance. That is, they were all closer to their bowl site than the opponent.

Of course, the sample sizes are very small, so it is hard to draw any definite conclusions, but it is apparent that some conferences are favored rather heavily by the locations of their bowls. If anyone would like this data to work with the numbers a bit more, drop your contact information in the comments.

Posted under Analysis

Because I don’t feel like coming up with any real content this weekend.

Posted under Spring Coverage

Locus of Control is a psychological term referring to whether a person believes that, in a given situation, they control the outcome (internal locus of control), or if they are being forced into a given outcome by the circumstances (external locus of control). Here, it is applied to college football defensive coordinators.

Defensively, belief in an internal locus of control would lead a coordinator to create a system and scheme wherein the defense attacks the offense, and forces them into making adjustments to the defenders. Belief in an external locus of control would consist of soft zone teams, and schemes that are primarily based upon a read-and-react ideology. Of course, offenses go into every given play with either a run or pass called, so the defense does not have quite the autonomy that an offensive team might have.

Defensive coordinators who believe in a scheme that places faith in an external locus of control are those who run almost all zones, and believe that their superior execution can prevent opponents from moving the ball down the field and scoring. In defensive fronts and linebackers, former Michigan defensive coordinator Jim Herrmann’s “read and react” ideology is the perfect example of external locus of control. By definition, you think the offense controls the play, and you hope to stop what they are doing after it begins its progress.

At the other end of the spectrum is the internal locus of control. Defensive coordinators that utilize heavy blitzing are certainly believers in this. The blitzes are designed to force the offense into changing what it wants to do. For running, that would be cause the running back to say “oh shit, I’m screwed,” and for passing, it would be either sacking the quarterback or forcing him to make a bad throw (or one that doesn’t get his team a first down). Along the front, internal locus of control coordinators would like their defensive linemen to play downhill and get after the quarterback or running back.

So which type of defensive philosophy is better? It really all depends. If a team has superior athletes, it can easily sit back in a zone and play bend-not-break principles. On the other hand, it can also play aggressively, and rack up a lot of negative plays for the opposing offense – but likely give up a big play or two the other way. With inferior talent, it will be hard for defensive linemen or blitzers to get through blockers (without sending so many men as to risk giving up an easy big play to the other team), so they are more likely to play soft, and hope they can not break, or come up with some stops. Like pretty much everything in football strategy, a mix of the two ideals is preferable.

In 2006 and 2007, Michigan defensive coordinator Ron English played with a balanced defensive system. From some games, it is apparent that he preferred to attack, believing in an internal locus of control. However, over the course of both seasons, it seems as though he wasn’t always allowed to run the defense the way he wanted, and the overall coaching philosophy of the program was to play it a little more safely.

In 2008, new Michigan defensive coordinator Scott Shafer will run a defensive scheme that believes wholeheartedly in an internal locus of control. His teams will blitz heavily, and place an emphasis on getting into the backfield to take down the running back or quarterback. This aggressive philosophy (especially with Michigan’s veteran defensive front) will allow Michigan to rack up many tackles for loss, but could also result in big plays given up to the opposition. However, as he told me earlier this year, the scheme will also react to what the offense is doing (though I believe he meant that as more of a formational adjustment, not an adjustment to the plays the offense is running).

Posted under Coaching

The full board. A bit of information was rearranged, but not enough to note it here.

New InformationVA QB Kevin Newsome – linked to State Track meet article.
CA QB Tate Forcier – linked to his Michigan offer. Also, current internet rumor du jour is that he is visiting Michigan this weekend.
PA RB Jordan Hall – Plans an early decision.
MN WR Fritz Rock – Life story article from the Gopher Hole. Football Story
MS DT Josh Boyd – has reportedly been offered.
MD LB Jelani Jenkins – has reportedly been offered.
FL WR Andre Debose – Track results.

Added
IL QB Darwin Rogers – run-pass QB from Chicago.
FL RB Vincent Smith – HS teammate of Martavious Odoms and Nu’Keese Richardson. May be close to a Michigan offer.
GA TE Terrell Mitchell – He claims a Michigan offer.
IL OL Chris Watt. He has a Michigan offer.
OH LB Dan Fox. Michigan Junior Day attendee.

Removed
OH WR Josh Jones. At this time, it doesn’t appear that he will be a top prospect.

Etc.
Sam Webb column in the Detroit News on Junior Day.

Posted under Recruiting

Locus of Control is a psychological term referring to whether a person believes that, in a given situation, they control the outcome (internal locus of control), or if they are being forced into a given outcome by the circumstances (external locus of control). Here, it is applied to college football defensive coordinators.

On the offensive end, locus of control is not necessarily an indicator of aggressiveness or run/pass ratio. Bo Schembechler, for example, believed very strongly in an internal locus of control (note: this specifically refers to years when the option was not heavily featured). His philosophy was to run down the opposition’s throat, and put a hat on a hat and beat the guy on the other side of the line. This was a very run-heavy offense. On the other end of the spectrum is the sort of team that tries to force the action by moving the ball downfield. USC’s 2003-05 offense was a good example of this. With confidence in Matt Leinart, Norm Chow, Steve Sarkisian, and Lane Kiffin were able to throw down the field with great success. As John David Booty showed over the next two years, however, this method is less likely to succeed with lower talent at the QB position.

At the other end of the locus of control spectrum lies external. This would be coaches taking what the defense gives them. These types of offense can succeed with less talent (specifically at the QB position in passing offenses) , and excel with great talent. A run-heavy team that relies on belief in an external locus of control would be Nebraska 1995. With Tommie Frazier at the helm, the Huskers ran an option attack. The base belief of the option is to hand off, pitch, or keep, reacting to what the defense will give you. In a passing attack, Purdue under Joe Tiller and Hawaii under June Jones are perfect examples of belief in external locus of control. These offenses rely heavily on bubble screens and short routes that the offense is willing to give up to avoid allowing the ball to be hurled downfield. Nickel-and-diming to score is their focus. This type of offense can succeed with less success at quarterback (see: Curtis Painter, Colt Brennan).

The ideal offense is a healthy mixture of believing in external and internal loci. Setting up the play-action with the run (play-action incorporates both controls, by forcing th defense to react in one way, then breaking their expectations), throwing both downfield and short passes, etc., seems to be the best way to run an offense that is both explosive and consistent (explosive=internal, consistent=external). LSU in 2007, despite not having a great offense, was able to blend the two beliefs very well, resulting in a high-scoring but consistent team. While we’re on the topic of LSU, going for fourth downs a la Les Miles would be belief in internal locus of control, rather than external, in which you take the field goal (which the defense is “giving you”).

On to recent Michigan teams. Michigan has been a fairly evenly-balanced run-pass team during the Lloyd Carr era. However, especially with Mike Debord, there has been a nearly-singular belief in an internal locus of control. “Hey man, we’re going to run left twice, no matter what you do” was the Mike Debord gameplan for seemingly every first down in 2007. Obviously, the Florida game was an exception, when Michigan had a nearly perfect gameplan: a healthy mix of run and pass, and a healthy mix of internal and external locus of control in both segments of the offense. For the rest of the year, however, Lloyd Carr preferred to adhere to an internal locus of control, while running the ball to “protect the defense.”

In 2008, it can be presumed that Rich Rodriguez will bring an offensive style that is at least similar to the one West Virginia has run in past years, even though the talent isn’t distributed among the skill positions in a similar manner at Michigan that it was at WVU. This means the offense will be slightly run-heavy (though there will likely be more passing than there has been at WVU in recent years), with a very strong belief in an external locus of control. This is an option offense that looks to capitalize on what the defense is doing, rather than forcing its will upon the defenders.

This is very much focused on taking what the defense gives you. So, look for Michigan’s offense in 2008 to be a slightly run-heavy externally-controlled spread-option attack.

Posted under Coaching