Michigan Football, the 2020 Abbreviated COVID Season

[hack]

IMO a relevant point that should be remembered. Not that it defines the argument -- as Cam Newton's dad knows, the ethics gap between those two programs is non-existent if there is one at all. But it's fine and fair to wonder why Michigan can't take three games a decade at least. Which leads you to the reffing in 2016.

But the team's now got a mentality issue about OSU. The '16 theft would have solved that, but it didn't.

[froot loops]

I don't know about always, but are you saying that's never justified?

In this case, you guys just got beat. In many ways they just choked. The talent gap is being way, way overplayed. Sure there is a gap, but some of that 56 points they gave up was because of correctly going for it in their own end and not making it.

1. They lost the turnover battle.
2. They fumbled away the ball on the OSU 12.
3. In the crucial 3rd quarter, the NFL-caliber receivers couldn't stop dropping the ball.
4. They closed to within 15 and they went for it on 4th and 1 from their 29 and they went to the dumb wildcat? Why do they continually go to a decade-old fad? You don't get a 5 star qb to run that silly gimmick.
5. If you count the turnovers and turnovers on downs they gave up 21 points off that.

[hack]

I agree with all of that. Michigan has rarely been the better-coached team. '16 and '17 were exceptions in that regard, I would argue, but otherwise Michigan's coaching staffs are in large part to blame for most losses. However, acknowledging all that is not the same as saying Michigan ALWAYS resorts to the corruption excuse, or that it is NEVER justified. Or that there can only be one reason for a loss instead of multiple.

One example of how it's not ALWAYS is that we don't see Michigan fans by and large citing it for 3 losses to MSU last year in basketball. We have no reason to believe Izzo didn't recruit those players fair and square, and while those losses still sting, and though we may disagree with decisions in EL about who gets to stay eligible or on the coaching staff despite whatever criminal allegations have come up against them, the bottom line is that the mainstream Michigan reaction to those three losses was not to accuse MSU of cheating to get those three wins.

Examples in football come from the Wisconsin loss this year, or the PSU loss, or the MSU losses of the past. Michigan fans reacted not by alleging corruption but by talking about Shea Patterson's shortcomings or Wisconsin's ability to develop OL and RBs in a way that Michigan cannot anymore but once could, or Brady Hoke's buffoonery with the railroad spike and Borges' playcalling. Michigan definitely loses games and blames things other than corruption. The only time is comes up is with OSU. So I think that on a spectrum between always and never there's a logical and defensible place to land, and that's where you'll find a fair characterization of where many Michigan people stand on this.

[iam416]

And we know exactly why.

Oh, I know exactly why. And it warms my heart.

[froot loops]

Haha

[Jeff Buchanan]

I guess we'd all pretty much agree that there's a increasing talent differential between the perennial CFP teams, Clemson, osu, Alabama, Georgia and I'll add in 2nd tier contenders from the SEC and OU. The talent differential between these teams and the rest of CFB increases as you move down and out of a 10y consensus top 25. The differential at the 15 to 25 level teams and beyond, is huge.

There's little agreement on why. A default position that involves cheating by these elites is speculative at best albeit there's anecdotal evidence that it occurs - more on an isolated rather than a widespread basis.

talent's argued that CFB needs to abandon its outmoded belief in amateurism because allowing the NCAA to penalize players/teams for getting benefits like shoes, tats or trips is distracting and fundamentally a stupid waste of time. I agree with him. I disagree with him and believe that benefits way beyond that are going to a small number of potentially difference making Top 50-100 HS recruits. Those recruits seem to be concentrated among the small number of elites. Regardless of what you believe the cause, whpoatever is going on to create this circumstance is highly anti-competitive.

I mentioned this elsewhere that the pro leagues recognized the anti-competitive aspects of concentrating talent among a handful of teams and inacted measures to mitigate that and make teams competetive top to bottom. College President's acting through the NCAA Board of Governers need to act in a similar way. I actually think there is some hope for that.

The NIL, although still unclear how far reaching changes to the arcane NCAA amateurism rules will be, is a real opportunity to address the kind of anti-competative nature of CFB that exists today. Few schools can compete with the elites ...... for whatever reason you want to assign to the concentration of talent they enjoy.

One other note for talent. I went back and read the OP and, yes, I should own the OP's argument that it isn't crazy to think osu is providing benefits that the NCAA would deem inappropriate to gain an incremental edge in recruiting. It's one of many reasonable explanations for the increasing distance in talent that osu has achieved since late tressel and ufm v. M. I wouldn't expect less from you than a stout defense of osu and you provided it. We aren't going to see things the same way, also not unexpectedly. In areas where speculation as to cause exists - and this is certainly the case - that speculation is viewed by each of us through different prisms. I'll also acknowledge that, as you have correctly pointed out, Harbaugh just may not be a good recruiter in comparison to other HC. That too is another reasonable explanation why there is a talent gap between osu and M on the football field that can't be overcome by better player development, better coaching and more attention to The Game. That acknowdgement however does not mean I won't, at least in part, own the OP's arguements.

[hack]

Haha

So you're sticking with always does but never should?

[iam416]

Just a quick point re Clemson. They were held up, by many a MGO poster, as a model to follow in terms of recruiting for M. Not in terms of means, but ends. Clemson's recruiting outcomes have generally been BELOW M and well below UAT, OSU, etc. They usually sign smaller classes and take a risk on some 3* kids they really like. They also get elite talent, but not in the same volume. This year they happen to be absolutely crushing it. But there's also a pretty good explanation for that -- they're fucking CLEMSON. Who wouldn't want to play for them.

Anyway, I did want to make that point because Clemson's recruiting rankings and outcomes are probably behind M under HARBAUGH!!! -- at least until the 2020 class if factored in.

It's also worth noting that what makes M way more desirable than Iowa also makes Clemson/Alabama/OSU way more desirable than M. They're just better programs. M is always going to outrecruit Iowa. The explanation is always going to be very simple. And it's never going to be about money. M, for that matter, also outrecruits a lot of SEC schools (and presumably, every SEC school of note is CHEATING!!!). Then again, since whether you're cheating or not seems to measured in outcome, maybe South Carolina and Tennessee are clean as a whistle.

[iam416]

I'll also point out that this thread has been dedicated to assessing whatever is "wrong" with M football. And for 25 pages of posts there was virtually no discussion (not that I can recall) of some massively uneven playing field that caps M's ability to compete thereby excusing HARBAUGH!!! from ever having to beat Ohio State. Rather, the discussion was focused on a number of different issues, factors, circumstances created by the coaching staff or fan perception. I thought it was pretty interesting. As a quick note on that -- I'm going to be WAY wrong on Gattis. Way wrong. I think I'm right on my take on a lot of points, but I like Gattis, now.

Anyway, we spent a long time talking about where M football is, but it isn't until Ohio State blasts M (again) that we're into CHEATERZ!!!! argument the renders the entire discussion moot (and is a pitiful resignation that M football should, more or less, go the way of Chicago).

Why are you even having a "state of M" thread if an external force (rampant cheating) + an internal force (M's remarkable ethos) renders M systemically incapable of competing at the highest level? Just acknowledge the futility of it all, call it a day and forget that M football ever existed.

[Tom W]

I don't know if ohio pays its players- or cheats in any other ways- more so than anybody else. There's not a whole lot of evidence provided here.

But it is kind of funny to see talent step off his high (and smarter than the rest of us) horse for a bit and come unraveled when Jeff merely floats the suspicion in front of him..

[lineygoblue]

I don't know if ohio pays its players- or cheats in any other ways- more so than anybody else. There's not a whole lot of evidence provided here.

But it is kind of funny to see talent step off his high (and smarter than the rest of us) horse for a bit and come unraveled when Jeff merely floats the suspicion in front of him..

I'll never forget your name again, Tom... (inside joke)

[Dr. Strangelove]

Simple explanation as to why offensive recruits prefer an Urban/Tom Herman/Ryan Day offense to the Al Borges/Jim Harbaugh/Tim Drevno model...ENORMOUS BAGS OF CASH!!

[hack]

Well that's exactly the point there -- OF COURSE cheating only comes up when OSU's mentioned, because its the dirtiest program in the conference. It only makes sense to have inward criticism post Wisconsin or Penn State, because those are games we all know are played on a more-or-less level playing field. Fewer people are going to be dopey and earnest enough not to factor in OSU's approach to rules in the post-game analysis. If it goes on long enough there won't be much of a rivalry left if any at all. Most people under 40 aren't attached to it. I could get used to a football life in which Michigan may no longer harbor national aspirations, but aligns it goals more sensibly to its ethics, and no longer has to go through the pretense of playing OSU as if the game is decided solely on the field. I can be done with this. But first lets see what Michigan can do in the paid-players era. On the odd chance someone involved in athletics has a vision of the future instead of a yearning for the past, Michigan should benefit from that more than any other school. It's not the only clean school, but it's the one with that massive alumni base and exposure. A dollar for playing in Ann Arbor should go further than a dollar for playing in most other places, including Columbus.

[iam416]

Simple explanation as to why offensive recruits prefer an Urban/Tom Herman/Ryan Day offense to the Al Borges/Jim Harbaugh/Tim Drevno model...ENORMOUS BAGS OF CASH!!

Indeed. I think every recruit in the entire country would, if given a fair decision, choose M over every other school in the country. The only possible explanation as to why recruits don't choose M isn't CHEATING!!!!

It's pretty hard to refute that logic when it's supported by that evidence.

[lineygoblue]

::::pops popcorn:::::