A day may come when the courage of men fails, but it is not this day

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Harbaugh is responsible for everything within the program, so he "should have known", hence the penalty.

If it turns out he did know, then expect heavier penalties to come.

The B10 doesn't have that kind of stipulation, the NCAA does. The penalty is claiming we broke sportsmanship rules, and the B10 is punishing an individual rather than an institution; hence the lawsuit. The NCAA could take it out on the institution later on, and will absolutely go harder on Michigan if it turns out there is some connecting evidence. But at this point, it's well known they have nothing connecting those dots.

 

[cwerph]

The B10 doesn't have that kind of stipulation, the NCAA does. The penalty is claiming we broke sportsmanship rules, and the B10 is punishing an individual rather than an institution; hence the lawsuit. The NCAA could take it out on the institution later on, and will absolutely go harder on Michigan if it turns out there is some connecting evidence. But at this point, it's well known they have nothing connecting those dots.

As has been said repeatedly, the B1G specifically references the NCAA rulebook, with the only exception being if the conference passes a more stringent rule.

Try again.

 

[cwerph]

Nothing to see here:

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Nothing to see here:

lol, you're telling me game outcomes change year to year based on massive roster overhauls on both teams???! Who would have thought....couldn't have any anything to do with Penn State returning Clifford for like the 100th year and Michigan, along with every other B10 team, having seen him and his offense a billion times? Nah, must have been the sign stealing...

 

[cwerph]

lol, you're telling me game outcomes change year to year based on massive roster overhauls on both teams???! Who would have thought....couldn't have any anything to do with Penn State returning Clifford for like the 100th year and Michigan, along with every other B10 team, having seen him and his offense a billion times? Nah, must have been the sign stealing...

Tell me you didn't understand what was posted without telling me you didn't understand what was posted.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Tell me you didn't understand what was posted without telling me you didn't understand what was posted.

You don't seem to understand what was posted.

You don't seem to understand that scouting a 4 year starter at a school is dramatically easier than scouting a "new" offense. The entire intent of scouting is to guess and react to what you think the defense is going to run. So when you have 4 years of tape vs. 9 games, there's going to be a dramatic difference in your ability to do that; sign stealing or not. That alone could account for the difference in this particular stat.

 

[cwerph]

You don't seem to understand what was posted.

You don't seem to understand that scouting a 4 year starter at a school is dramatically easier than scouting a "new" offense. The entire intent of scouting is to guess and react to what you think the defense is going to run. So when you have 4 years of tape vs. 9 games, there's going to be a dramatic difference in your ability to do that; sign stealing or not. That alone could account for the difference in this particular stat.

Do you think an experienced starter runs a more complex offense than one that is starting his first year?
Do you think that PSU didn't save some stuff for Michigan last year with that experienced starter?

The PSU offense was extremely basic this year compared to last year's. They weren't adding stuff because their QB couldn't handle it.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Do you think an experienced starter runs a more complex offense than one that is starting his first year?
Do you think that PSU didn't save some stuff for Michigan last year with that experienced starter?

The PSU offense was extremely basic this year compared to last year's. They weren't adding stuff because their QB couldn't handle it.

There's a ton of nuance to the metric that's clearly missed by that twitter user:

An RPS +1 Means a play was just the right call by the O or D coordinator to take advantage of the opposing team's O or D. A +2 or +3 means they did that really well.

An RPS -1 -2 or -3 means M's coaches made a terrible play call that was just what the opposing coordinator wanted them to do.

You'd expect, in ANY blowout, the RPS to be massively leaning one way vs. much closer in a closer game. This is how the metric almost ALWAYS plays out.

 

[TheReal_NU]

You'd expect, in ANY blowout, the RPS to be massively leaning one way vs. much closer in a closer game. This is how the metric almost ALWAYS plays out.

Expand on you hypothesis.

Are you suggesting that a blowout causes Michigan to guess correctly more often?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Expand on you hypothesis.

Are you suggesting that a blowout causes Michigan to guess correctly more often?

But that's a misrepresentation of what the metric means. In the metric you can get + just for having ONE player in the right spot.

And yes, if you go look back at any blowout, you'll see that the RPS numbers follow this (they'll be massively in Michigan's favor). In close games, generally, that number is closer to 0 +/-.

 

[TheReal_NU]

But that's a misrepresentation of what the metric means. In the metric you can get + just for having ONE player in the right spot.

And yes, if you go look back at any blowout, you'll see that the RPS numbers follow this (they'll be massively in Michigan's favor). In close games, generally, that number is closer to 0 +/-.

But that's a misrepresentation of what the metric means. In the metric you can get + just for having ONE player in the right spot.

And yes, if you go look back at any blowout, you'll see that the RPS numbers follow this (they'll be massively in Michigan's favor). In close games, generally, that number is closer to 0 +/-.

But is a blowout caused by having one person in the right spot?

I’d argue Michigan could have lined up in goal line defense with 8 defensive linemen and still beaten Nebraska.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

But is a blowout caused by having one person in the right spot?

I’d argue Michigan could have lined up in goal line defense with 8 defensive linemen and still beaten Nebraska.

I mean, yes? One or more. That's typically why the game is a blowout....you're beating the other team significantly in every area. Do you have blowouts where teams aren't in the right place for beating the other team?

I think you'll see the RPS for Michigan's offense significantly lower than normal because of how we ran at them irrelevant of what penn state was doing defensively.

 

[cwerph]

There's a ton of nuance to the metric that's clearly missed by that twitter user:

An RPS +1 Means a play was just the right call by the O or D coordinator to take advantage of the opposing team's O or D. A +2 or +3 means they did that really well.

An RPS -1 -2 or -3 means M's coaches made a terrible play call that was just what the opposing coordinator wanted them to do.

You'd expect, in ANY blowout, the RPS to be massively leaning one way vs. much closer in a closer game. This is how the metric almost ALWAYS plays out.

Which came first?

The blowout, or knowing what play was coming?

Does it not logically follow that if you know what is coming, you are more likely to succeed and thus, blow out the opponent?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Which came first?

The blowout, or knowing what play was coming?

Does it not logically follow that if you know what is coming, you are more likely to succeed and thus, blow out the opponent?

That's what scouting is for....teams attempt to do this every single game.

 

[cwerph]

That's what scouting is for....teams attempt to do this every single game.

Thank you - - - so you finally admit that sending someone to opponents's games to film their signs gives you a scouting advantage. I knew I could get you to admit it if I tried long enough!

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Thank you - - - so you finally admit that sending someone to opponents's games to film their signs gives you a scouting advantage. I knew I could get you to admit it if I tried long enough!

Not at all. I think that made gathering scouting information easier. I don't think that makes it 1. absolute and 2. added significantly more content than they'd be able to get. I think that made it easier for a low level analyst to do less work to accomplish the same goal.

Scouting teams is something all teams do. It's why all22 film exists.

 

[cwerph]

Not at all. I think that made gathering scouting information easier. I don't think that makes it 1. absolute and 2. added significantly more content than they'd be able to get. I think that made it easier for a low level analyst to do less work to accomplish the same goal.

Scouting teams is something all teams do. It's why all22 film exists.

All-22 does not include the signalers on the sideline.

 

[TheReal_NU]

That's what scouting is for....teams attempt to do this every single game.

So if a team happened to be “really good” at scouting, you might expect a blowout.

And if they suddenly had something change in how they scouted, they might only win by say 9 points?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

All-22 does not include the signalers on the sideline.

We're talking about overall scouting. And the point of scouting film is to recognize formations and what they're likely to mean. And overall scouting can include, but is not limited to, sign stealing. Teams spend a lot of time scouting other teams for this exact reason; to try and predict what they're going to run based on signs and formations.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

So if a team happened to be “really good” at scouting, you might expect a blowout.

In if they suddenly had something change in how they scouted, they might only win by say 9 points?

That's not the only thing that would play into it. Having much better talent also plays into this. Penn State knew Michigan was going to run at them, and they couldn't stop it. One game was at home, the other game was away. There's so many factors. Graduating players. New position coaches. Returning position coaches (IE you now have a year of prior film to review for tendencies). Having an offense play away means they have massive road noise during play calling, which might lead to simplifying things.

So no, just because Michigan blew out a team one year and not the next is not evidence of illegal sign stealing. Any more than Ohio State blowing us out by 60 and then losing two years in a row is evidence of the same thing.