Florida 41, Michigan 15

[Hannibal]

[Jeff Buchanan]

View From the Stands:

Was right on the 50, behind M's bench just above field level. Surprisingly, I could see a lot of detail when the teams were between the 40 on defense.

Bush was missed. talent is correct with his comment that Brown's defense has a talent threshold. But that wasn't the entire problem. Mullen runs a very dynamic offense - 5 wides, lots of jet sweeps with a countering inside run game that absolutely hit pay-dirt - encapsulating Don Brown's defense - when Ross blitzed and Lamical Perine scored a 53 yard TD right up the middle.

Bottom line: Brown got pantsed again by a dynamic offense. There were two QB keepers where Franks hit the hole vacated by whoever had responsibility for that gap - probably Ross but could have been one of the Ss on a blitz. He had a couple of keepers outside that were not as successful as those two runs in the middle. Frustratingly, M gave up 4 third and longs and I suspect various "win with aggressiveness" concepts were exploited by UF.

M did a better job at the crossing routes that shredded M's D v. osu with Metellus making some very good plays on these. Some of them hit but for the most part, he did his job from the S position making good reads, stepping up and stopping the receiver for minimal gain.

Franks hit some long balls whihc happens but for the most part he's not that great with the deep ball and coverage from the corners - including Watson - was decent.

The M offense is completely predictable. It is the least dynamic offense I have watched among bowl teams. Dramatically so. UF defenders in the post game said, "we knew what was coming" ..... and.... "it didn't seem like they prepared very well for us." That's an indictment of the coaching staff. A month to prepare and M's offense was predictably M's offense.

Sadly, a lot of things just didn't seem to go M's way. They were definitely out played and out coached because Dan Mullen is a very good coach and UF is a good team. But the very close call on the TD catch and run where the runner went out of bounds (barely) and the play got called back was one of them.... and rub it in, M couldn't get 1 yard on two plays right after that. Unimaginative play calling when the OL can't over-power the opponents front 7. The other was a perfectly thrown back-shoulder fade to the end zone that Black didn't secure. Those are two TDs that with a different outcome might have made the game more competitive. Add the blocked punt that sailed out of the endzone instead of bouncing around in it - when does that happen - Frustrating. Those plays and TDs were there.

But the offense is way behind emerging college offenses and Harbaugh has to understand that and act on it. Plays were about equal and I was surprised about that given M's tempo which is turtle like. The problem is that it is horribly inefficient..... probably because it's predictable. Execution is not the problem. But, it's futile. The play calling is questionable and so is clock management and tempo but I think the scheme in general is self limiting because they OL cannot perform the blocking Harbaugh is asking it to do - despite strides by Warriner - especially against teams that know what is coming. They aren't over-powering opponent DLs/LBs to deliver the kind of power run game Harbaugh has designed. OT play in pass-protection remains a concern and that must limit passing plays. My view is that there may be better offensive approaches to match what the OL can do than what Harbaugh has designed.

I'm going to wait until the end of January to see if Hamilton stays or goes. He's not the primary problem. Harbaugh is but if Hamilton moves on, it's a sign that Harbaugh may want to bring in a fresh mind on offense with fresh ideas that are consistent with those that are becoming successful and may be willing to listen to him. If it looks like same-ol-same ol for 2019, I'm pretty sure I won't be buying season tickets. My take is that there are good number of folks at the same place I am. The difference is, I'm at peace where M football is and got there a few weeks after the osu loss. It is soundly ensconced as a second tier program nationally and in the BIG and will continue to be one under Jim Harbaugh unless he adapts. I'm not confident he will. One thing I won't be doing in 2019, if there are not positive signs of changes on the offensive coaching staff, is contributing to the AD via the PSL or ticket sales. Unless there are clear signs that M is looking to improve what it does on offense, I'm out. Easier and less expensive to watch when I want on TV with a lower level of interest.

[iam416]

[Hannibal]

Losing by three in OT at OSU is schematically disadvantaged. Losing 62-39 and then losing 41-15 to a team with comparable talent means that there is dysfunction that supersedes Xs and Os.

[Hannibal]

With that said, the offensive scheme is utter fucking trash and it was from Day 1 under Jedd Fisch too.

[froot loops]

After that TD was overturned, those two short yardage calls were trash.

[iam416]

Correct

[Wellington_beefhouser]

[Jeff Buchanan]

I think there is something to that as it applies on a personal level. How we react as fans to the reality that Michigan football under Jim Harbaugh is not at the championship level we had hoped it would be is worth considering.

ESPN does a thing for the CFPs that is called a mega-cast. One of the streams is a show where four coaches sit at a table and break down plays right after they occur. It's very good. We watched the ND/Clemson game and part of the Alabama/OU game in this manner.

While not about X's and O's, the panel of coaches also talked about key issues facing CFB today. Mack Brown asked the other three coaches whether or not they thought having two teams - Clemson and Alabama along with a few others - so far ahead of the rest of the 132 FBS teams that it was nearly impossible for the rest to reasonably entertain hopes of being a part of a national championship play-off let alone winning it? Mack pointed out that the ability to recruit, sustained by winning, essentially freezes out too many contenders from the elite talent pool of HS players. Add this to the resources the top teams spend on their football programs and you really do have the haves and have nots. One of the other coaches - I think it was the Memphis HC - noted, in the NFL the worst teams get the best players in the draft. Nothing remotely close to this occurs in CFB. The rich get richer ...... he did add, however, that 8 of the 22 last pro-bowlers came from G5 teams.

Paul Johnson, one of the coaches in the analysis group said, he would be for separating the power 5 conferences from the group of five and running two parallel championships each having an 8 team play off. The P5 would invite, the 5 conference champs (however that might be determine,i.e., eliminate the CCGs and go from there?), 2 G5 conference champs and one at large P5 team. The G5 would have it's 3 remaining conference champs, 3 at large G5 teams and 2, P5 at large teams. On a smaller scale it looks like the NCAA and NIT Basketball national championships. I'd add - and I think Johnson would agree - you have to have some level of conference realignment to make this work or you'd still have ND not in a conference and Clemson consistently dominating a terrible ACC.

Johnson added, in the current set-up, schools have to "decide" if they want to compete with the few teams at the top of the heap that continue to distance themselves from the pack. I thought that was insightful in that it suggests that the current CFB system requires a level of focus on and commitment to football as a predominant portion of the university's culture and mission. Take that for what it's worth as it might apply to Michigan football.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Michigan football is not just that - a front porch to the university - but I also think administrators who are the ultimate deciders about the football program both inside and outside the athletic department shape it's core values. None of them are going to see M's last two losses like some fans do. They are not going to pillory the coaches, threaten termination if things don't improve or change the kinds of priorities for student-athletes also playing football. Michigan's football culture is what it is and to some extent, you can argue that in Johnson's parlance, Michigan has probably "decided" it is not going to measure the quality of it's football program by comparing it to Clemson, Alabama's or osu - different cultures, different priorities.

That's the place where I am right now with regard to M football. Enjoy what it is and the kinds of student athletes it builds while they participate in the various athletic programs available to them. See the positives - Rosling's middle - of the program and what it has accomplished eschewing the very small portion of the negatives associated with M's three losses, two of them to teams with very different school cultures. YMMV.

[Kstat]

[Jeff Buchanan]

Competitive disadvantage has driven every over-seeing entity of pro-sports teams to significant changes intended to eliminate the concentration of power within their respective leagues to a handful of teams. The NCAA is a very different over-seeing entity of CFB teams. I'm not sure they can do what he NBA, Major League Baseball, the NHL and the NFL have done to improve competitiveness across their leagues. The driving force for change in CFB would be university and college program presidents. Unlike pro team franchise owners, presidents have widely varying interests with respect to the football programs within their institutions.

We'd all like to see change. If it comes it is going to be slow, incremental, disjointed and disappointing.

[edindetroit]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Michigan football is not just that - a front porch to the university - but I also think administrators who are the ultimate deciders about the football program both inside and outside the athletic department shape it's core values. None of them are going to see M's last two losses like some fans do. They are not going to pillory the coaches, threaten termination if things don't improve or change the kinds of priorities for student-athletes also playing football. Michigan's football culture is what it is and to some extent, you can argue that in Johnson's parlance, Michigan has probably "decided" it is not going to measure the quality of it's football program by comparing it to Clemson, Alabama's or osu - different cultures, different priorities.

If they don't want to compete with OSU they should exit the B1G.

[Wellington_beefhouser]

[iam416]

You have to entirely, and I mean, entirely change the model. The professional leagues can do it because they are employers. Colleges are, well, colleges. For the vast majority of scholarship athletes the current model is accurate -- they are STUDENT-athletes. Ohio State and M have dozens of scholarship sports that truly embody that notion. And those students ought to be able to choose the school they want to attend. There is no way on earth we can tell kids they have to go to, e.g., Mississippi State because they sucked the season before. However, if you entirely divorce the big-time money sports from academics and turn them into true employees, then you could do it. But, that ain't happening.

The other unsatisfying move is pay players in an effort to negate some of the "unfair benefits" of the so-called "bag men" which dominate recruiting talk in these parts.

On a personal note, I've sort of hit a CFB malaise, too. Well, a little bit. More and more often I wonder why I care one lick about what 20 year old kids do on a Saturday afternoon. It passes and I find myself caring a great deal -- mostly for worse (most of 2018) and occasionally for better (2018 M!). But, it's a profoundly stupid sport from top to bottom. It's almost as if it was organized without an ounce of direction in a patchwork reactionary way over the past 100 ways that resulted in an ill-functioning confederacy. As you noted, it's a sport with massive and inherent competitive imbalance at it's core. It's a sport with significantly diverse confederate approaches. And it has the single worst post-season in any "major" sport. If I hadn't grown up watching the sport and loving it, there's no way I'd ever come to it. Ever.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Ahhhhh, talent. You are getting older and wiser.

..... but you are spot on with the fact entirely changing the current model ain't happening. I think it can be tweeked though to make it better.

I think the outcome of the Alston v. NCAA case may have an impact here and I'd like to hear your take on it. In my view, if the Court is to direct the NCAA to un-cap cost of attendance limits, this changes the current dynamic a good deal. Of course, programs could decide to not do anything, i.e., not change the amount they provide for student-athletes for cost of attendance. But let's say top programs do, at least the ones that can afford to do so. That is going to increase the gap between the haves and have nots and potentially be the driver for changing the current model.

Alternatively, even without Alston or with the Judge not ordering the NCAA to do anything or to do something but not as game changing as uncapping cost of attendance limits, ending CCGs and going with an eight team play-off is a doable tweek. So is realigning the BIG so that the current East division is not overloaded at the top. I don't think the conference leaders like the current system and wev'e heard murmers of this form the BIG and the SEC. So, there is some impetus for change (conference realignment and better post season play-off) already.

I think the outcome of the Court directing the NCAA to uncap the cost of attendance limit would be a rendering that most probably would end up splitting out the haves and the have nots into two leagues. That could drive, by necessity on the basis of competitive fairness, conference realignment at least among the P5 programs. That makes for an easy, well maybe not so easy but still, transition to an improved post season play-off. I think the Alston case outcome, if the Judge directs the NCAA to uncap cost of attendance rules, will create the circumstance for major changes.