Michigan has played Bowling Green State University two times, once in 2000 and once in 2010. The 2010 game was full of big plays, with Denard Robinson rushing 5 times for 129 yards and 2 touchdowns on an injury-shortened day that saw him rush or pass the ball just 9 times overall.
- Fitzgerald Toussaint 61-yard touchdown run (2010)
- John Navarre 58-yard pass to B.J. Askew (2000)
- Denard Robinson 47-yard touchdown run (2010)
- Denard Robinson 47-yard run (2010)
- Chris Perry 42-yard touchdown run (2000)
- John Navarre 41-yard touchdown pass to David Terrell (2000)
- Denard Robinson 36-yard pass to Roy Roundtree (2010)
- Michael Cox 35-yard run (2010)
- Ray Vinopal 32-yard interception return (2010)
- Devin Gardner 30-yard pass to Darryl Stonum (2010)
was really hoping for the night game to be a Maize Out at night ... alas, we'll be Blue
ReplyDeleteOff topic. A point here related to an observation from Michael Rosenburg SI
ReplyDelete"The NFL no longer sees star running backs as an essential component of winning. The current franchise-tag value for the position, $10.09 million, is the lowest in the sport outside of kickers and punters; the tag number for offensive linemen is $18.24 million. In a pay-for-play system with a salary cap, Michigan would devote heavy resources to its offensive line, which has won back-to-back Joe Moore Awards as the nation’s best. But NIL is based not on gridiron analytics but on celebrity, marketability and visibility—generally not core attributes of those who toil on the O-line. And so Corum’s earnings potential in college football far surpasses that of his linemen."
This is a place where the debate on RB value in college will play out directly. We may never have publically known salaries between OL and RB like we do in the NFL but nonetheless Michigan and other powerhouse programs will have to be careful to get their "salary" allocations right or risk getting moneyballed by somebody like maybe Illinois throwing a bunch of money at OL and getting an edge.
It may take a decade to sort out the new paradigm but "marketability and visibility" aren't factors that affect wins and losses on the field. Analytics is coming and I hope Michigan is ahead of the curve. Getting Keegan and Zinter back is reason for optimism.
https://www.si.com/college/2023/09/13/how-nil-money-made-michigan-football-program-even-stronger
DeleteI saw this article. I'd like to see data on CFB & Jim Harbaugh's MICHIGAN specifically. My gut tells me that corum earns more than anyone except maybe JJ, and that Edwards makes more than at least half our best 5-10 OL, maybe even h half the starters on either side of the ball
Delete"It may take a decade to sort out the new paradigm but "marketability and visibility" aren't factors that affect wins and losses on the field."
DeleteI don't really agree with you here, and that's especially true in college football, where players have a choice. If one team's players are always on ESPN, billboards, commercials, etc., that's going to spill over. Just because Blake Corum is a running back doesn't mean his popularity is limited to running back. High school players and young kids are going to see the winged helmet, hear about him in the Heisman race (possibly, though he's off to a bit of a slow start), etc. and want to play for Michigan, even if they're not running backs. Jim Harbaugh didn't come up with this quote, but he said at one time, "A rising tide raises all ships."
We have indeed seen that type of thing in other sports, too. Baseball players want to play for the Yankees. Basketball players want to play for the Lakers.
I think kids grow up wanting to play for the Cowboys, too. Maybe the Raiders. There are some storied programs that just have more pull than others. (Ask most kids in America and they would rather play for the Cowboys than the Panthers, or play for the Steelers than the Texans.) Marketability and visibility are factors.
@Thunder. Yeah that's a valid point about recruiting. I was considering that as an off-field activity.
DeleteAcknowledge they aren't independent but it doesn't help former Michigan basketball bench warmer Adrian Nunez that he has more instagram followers than Trey Burke when they try to pull down a rebound or hit a shot. Popularity doesn't help there.
Iconic brands in sports are usually a byproduct of winning, primarily. Plus some combination of style that transcends the fanbase (e.g., Fab Five). The Yankees and Cowboys have massive markets AND they won. Michigan is similar.
If you don't win, that shine starts to tarnish.
More relevant - as recruiting becomes a game of "how much are you offering?" those brands become less relevant. Just like in the business world. It's still a factor -- a place people want to work because of perception can pay less than a place people are not attracted to. But ultimately, very few are going to take a $100K job at Disney if Exxon is offering $250K.
Winning is the most important thing and Michigan is doing that again. A future star RB can be the most popular man in America and that's nice, but if he doesn't have a star OL opening holes for him everyone is going to ask "what's up with our star RB, he's lost a step".
Popularity isn't going to save him if he's seeing two unblocked defenders at the LOS.
@JE
DeleteYes, agree Corum is earning more. Sounds like by a wide margin. That was a point the article was making. In the NFL the OL would earn more because salary is salary and tied directly to on field performance and nothing else. OL are more valuable for winning than a RB so they are paid more.
Popularity is different. It's something that happens off field -- not tied to winning. I'm sure Saquan Barkley is making more endorsement money than Frank Ragnow, but he's earning half as much salary for playing football.
In college it's a different paradigm.
I think as long as we have Harbaugh (and likely Moore if he replaces him) those guys will know and appreciate the value of OL and won't let that slide.
DeleteBuuuut, if ADs or collectives run NIL distributions outside of coaching control there may be a layer of detachment for what counts on the field. If programs confuse popularity with performance they'll be susceptible to getting Moneyballed.
Used to be to pull off a great season by a cinderella program you needed to outscheme people on the field. A day is coming where you can outscheme them off of it. That's what we see a lot of in pro sports these days where GMs and budgets determine which franchises are winners and which are struggling.
CFB is becoming a pro sport so we can expect a lot of the same dynamics as pro sports. That's unfortunate for current CFB fans but that's not the point. The programs that adapt during this transitionary period (that will likely take 5-10 years) have an opportunity to climb the ladder and make their school a lot of money.
If I was an AD I'd be hiring a general manager for football immediately. As we see in NFL, it's almost always a different skillset than coaching.