6:30 pm tonight on NBCSN.

Really need some points this weekend.

My whole life of watching sports it’s been tradition to watch and many years attend that tournament.

MSU has had it rough there the past decade but before that the 97 run to about 2009 we did very well and of course the mid 80s.

During my time at MSU we unfortunately were up against the Morrison, botteril, muckalt machine but we had guys emerging ie York, horcoff I knew would do well after I left.

I’d love to see us be a favorite again in that. It’s been too long.

I’m relatively new to the board. Anyone hunt? There has to be a couple, just curious.

I was able to take a 10 pt. in Ingham Co. on the 16th this year.

Let me know if you had any success in 2020 👍🏼

Over the past several weeks, I have presented a series of analyses where I used Ken Pomeroy’s efficiency data to make various projections about the upcoming Big Ten basketball season. While the robustness of this type of efficiency data this early and in such an unusual season is certainly debatable, it does provide a useful tool with which one can objectively look at the upcoming season.

As MSU prepares to take on the first Big Ten opponent of the year on Sunday in Evanston, I thought that it would be a good exercise to look at MSU’s entire schedule as a whole to get a feel for how the season might ebb and flow. To conduct this analysis, I used the current Kenpom data and projected the current win probability for all 20 of MSU’s currently scheduled games. The full schedule is visualized below in Figure 1.


Figure 1: Projected win probabilities for MSU's 2020-21 basketball schedule with road games denoted by the black boxes

The logo on top of each bar represents MSU’s opponent and the black boxes indicate a road game. The bars are spaced based on the date of the game such that breaks before certain games (such as the six day break before the road game at Iowa) are more visible. If the current win probability is over 50 percent, I show the bar in green. If it is below 50 percent, the bar has stripped red lines.

As an overview, my analysis of the Kenpom data current projects that MSU will be favored in 13 of the 20 total Big Ten contests. In addition, the expected value for the total number of wins (which is equal to the sum of the win probabilities for all 20 games) is now at just over 11 wins. While I personally feel that Michigan State will likely end the season with more than 11-13 conference wins and a higher Kenpom efficiency margin, that is what the data says on Dec. 19.

A closer look at the schedule can give MSU fans a feeling for how the season might progress. For example, MSU’s schedule is relatively light right out of the gate. The current projections suggest that MSU will be at least a slight favorite in the first six Big Ten games and in eight of the first nine. MSU’s easiest three road games (at Northwestern, at Minnesota, and at Nebraska) all fall in the first four games. Only the road game at Iowa on Jan. 14 projects as a loss and MSU could very well be 12-0 coming into that game.

That said, due to the strength of the Big Ten, virtually none of the games on the schedule are gimmes. Based on expected value, MSU is only expected to win about three of the first five games and between five and six of the first nine. As I look at the early schedule, in addition to the road date in Iowa City, the biggest threats appear to be the road game at Minnesota and the home games against Wisconsin and Illinois. Those will all be tough, but winnable games.

If MSU can go 7-2 in this early stretch, I think that this would be a solid start to Big Ten play. If MSU can only go 6-3 or worse in this stretch, then I think the odds of the Michigan State capturing a fourth straight Big Ten title will certainly be in jeopardy.

The reason for this is that the backend of the schedule is significantly more challenging. Starting on Jan. 28, the Spartan begin a brutal gantlet of five games in 13 days, three of which are on the road: at Rutgers, at Ohio State, vs. Nebraska, at Michigan, and vs. Penn State.

The good news it that the two home games project to be two of the easiest games on the entire schedule, but the three road games are all tough. Based on expected value, three wins in this stretch would be an above average result. I should also note that late January and early February is historically the time when Tom Izzo’s teams usually hit a wall and drop a strange game or two. I believe that @Carl_N has some really good data on this historically. This stretch has all the markings of a mid-season mini-slump.

Unfortunately, the next group of five games does not provide much relief. The Spartans host Iowa, followed by two road games in the state of Indiana, a home game against the Buckeyes, and then a road game at Maryland. Kenpom only clearly favors the Spartan in the home game against Ohio State and the expected number of wins in this cluster of games is also between two and three.

The final game on the schedule is the senior day home finale versus the Wolverines. MSU does get a big of a breather in the form of a week off before this game, and I would expect a motivated, sharp effort. This is simply a must-win game that I expect the Green and White to win.

In order to win the Big Ten this year, MSU is likely going to need to win 15 or 16 games, most likely. As I look at the schedule, the Spartans are going to need to start strong and perhaps win at least eight of the first nine games to stay on this pace. Over the next 10 games, MSU is going to need to find a way to win six or seven in order to stay in the hunt. After that, just beat Michigan on March 7 and hopefully hang a banner after the game.

Championship Zone

The analysis above gives some context on the Big Ten race, but what about overall hunt for a National Title? Figure 2 provides a way to put the current MSU team into context with previous MSU teams, previous NCAA Champions, and the current field of contenders based on current adjusted Kenpom offensive and defensive efficiency.


Figure 2: Comparison of the Kenpom adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency of selected teams in 2020-21 compared to past MSU teams and past NCAA champions.

This figure contains a ton of information. First, the shaded green area contains every NCAA champion back to 2002. As a general rule, historically a team needs to have an offensive efficiency (points scored per 100 possessions) of over 111 and defensive efficiency of less than 96 in order to cut down the nets in early April.

As of Friday, only 10 total teams fall into this region of the graph, including Big Ten schools Iowa, Illinois, Michigan and Michigan State. That said, the majority of former champions (14 of the past 18) also had a total adjusted efficiency margin of over 25.0 prior to the NCAA Tournament. Only three current teams: Gonzaga, Baylor, and Villanova are in this company so far in 2020-21.

As for the Spartans, MSU started the season just outside of the “championship zone,” but following the win over Oakland, the offensive efficiency improved just enough for MSU to barely make the cut, based on there metrics. At the same time, however, the Spartans’ defensive efficiency has been slipping. This will be interesting to track as the season progresses.

Figure 2 also allows for the comparison of this year’s Spartan team to past Tom Izzo coached teams. As of today, the 2020-21 Spartan team most closely resembles the 2007 team, statistically. The 2007 team, which was led by junior Drew Neitzel only went .500 in Big Ten play and lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament to No. 1 North Carolina as a No. 9. seed.

On a more positive note, the profile of the 2020-21 team so far is also similar to the 2010 Final Four team as well as the 2003 team that lost to Texas in the Regional Final. Hopefully, as Big Ten play gets underway, we will see the Spartans’ trajectory improve both offensively and defensively. A nice benchmark to shoot for would be the 2009 team that made the National Championship game at Ford Field. An incremental improvement on both side of the court would push the 2021 MSU team in that direction.

That’s all for today. I plan to update the this plot as well as the season move along. As always, enjoy, and Go Green.

Includes make up dates for Wisconsin.....

After the ND series this weekend...

Jan 3/4 - v. Penn State (4th is a Monday)
Jan 8th/9th - at Michigan/v. Michigan
Jan 15th/16th - at Penn State
Jan 23rd/24th - vs. Ohio State
Jan 29th/30th - at Wisconsin
February 9th - at Michigan (Tuesday)
February 14th/15th - vs. Arizona State (15th is a Monday)
February 19th/20th - at Minnesota
February 26th/27th - vs. Notre Dame
March 5th/6th - vs. Wisconsin
March 10th - vs. Michigan (Wednesday)

TV is TBD

Good show with a lot of off-season and recruiting nuggets.

Tucker says he expects some good news tomorrow.

Tucker says that off-season conditioning will start on Jan 19.

I have dish and the only way for me to watch most of the games is B1G10 plus. Is that how most of you watch the games?

First off, he isn't related to Taybor Pepper. That's just a coincidence lol.


Also, he's coming in at 6-foot-3, 220-pounds and was the 2020 Arizona 6A Defensive Player of the Year.

I know we covered how solid of a LB he is, but it turns out he may even contribute on defense sooner than we thought... I've included Rivals USC insider (formerly the Rivals AZ Prep analyst) Alec Simpson's analysis in this piece as well. Thanks @Alec Simpson for stopping by. Great analysis on Hank and how much of a gem MSU just snatched.

Tucker is close to jumping on the Zoom call. Will post updates as they happen.

I caught up with Venice (FL) defensive coordinator Larry Shannon, a former NFL wide receiver, to learn more about how Chuck Brantley and Steffan Johnson might fit at MSU.

He told me that both guys have the Dawg in them that you are looking for and that each guy competed against each other daily and made each other better in practice.

Shannon raved about Johnson's athleticism.

Shannon indicated that Brantley is a film nut, who understands what receivers are trying to do with route combinations and is very good at adjusting coverage based on formation. Venice runs a lot of mixed coverages.

Gather 'round.

Tuesday-Wednesday:

#4 Minnesota swept #5 Michigan in Ann Arbor 3-1, 4-0. Michigan was a popular pick to win the conference this year, but they have struggled lately. They are loaded with young talent, but it hasn't translated well. It will be interesting to see if they can improve over the 2nd half of the season like they did last year. On the other hand Minnesota keeps on rolling - this is their conference to lose now.

Friday-Sunday:

Arizona State at Penn State. PSU swept ASU winning both games in OT 3-2, 5-4. PSU seems to have turned a corner lately - playing better hockey after a very rough conference start.

Ohio State at ND - The series wraps up today, but the Irish dominated the first game winning 3-0. Notre Dame seems to have rebounded as well from a rought start winning 4 of their last 5 games.

Current Standings:

1. Minnesota - 24 points, 8 Games played (8-0-0 overall)
2. Wisconsin - 16 points, 8 games played (5-5-0 overall)
3. N.D. - 9 pts, 5 games played (4-3-0 overall)
4. Michigan - 8 points, 8 games played (5-5-0 overall)
5. Ohio St. - 7 points, 7 games played (2-5-0 overall)
6. PSU - 3 points, 6 games played (2-5-0 overall)
7. MSU - 2 points, 4 games played (2-3-1 overall)

Light schedule this week for the conference -

OSU hosts ASU in a Thursday-Friday series
MSU heads to ND in a Saturday-Sunday series, game is on NBCSN on Saturday and NBC Sports Chicago on Sunday.

For the last month or so, I have posted a series of pieces digging deep into the numbers of the upcoming Big Ten basketball race. I ran a series of season simulations to estimate the odds for each team to win the Big Ten regular season, the odds for seeding and the ultimate results of the Big Ten Tournament, and I performed an extensive study of Big Ten strength of schedule.

However, one limitation of this initial round of analysis was that it depended solely on the accuracy of Ken Pomeroy’s preseason rankings. While these number provide a good starting point, no one really knew back in mid-November how good any of these teams really would be. Now that a few weeks of basketball are in the books, we have some actual data. We still don’t know a lot, but we know more than we did a month ago.

The first Big Ten basketball game will be played on Sunday at 2 p.m. as Penn State travels to Michigan. So today gives a final chance to refresh the calculations before the Big Ten season starts in earnest. As expected, the landscape already looks a bit different than it did just a few weeks ago.

Table 1 below gives an updated summary of the Big Ten regular season odds, including the updated Kenpom efficiency margin values and rankings (as of Saturday morning, Dec. 12 and prior to Illinois’ loss to Missouri), the resulting expected conference win total, and the full win distribution matrix.

Table 1: Updated Big Ten regular season win distributions prior to the start of Big Ten play (12/12/2020)


The big mover in the preseason is clearly Iowa. According to Kenpom, Iowa’s efficiency margin has increased by more than 2.5 and as a result, the Hawkeyes now own the highest Kenpom ranking and expected win total in the conference at 12.9. Meanwhile, preseason Kenpom favorite Wisconsin has dropped to second place and has lost over half of a win in expected value.

As for MSU, despite wins over both Duke and Notre Dame, the Spartans have dropped by almost exactly 1.0 in Kenpom efficiency and as a result now sit in sixth place in expected wins at 11.3. If these numbers truly reflect the strength of each Big Ten team, MSU has a 52 percent chance to win between 10 and 12 conference games, a 29 percent chance to win 13 or more, and 19 percent chance to finish under .500.

That said, the Kenpom data still suggests a very competitive race. Ten of the 14 total Big Ten teams are expected to win between 10 and 13 games. Some teams are going to overachieve and win a game or two that they shouldn’t and conversely, other teams will lose a few games that they should win. In 2021, a game or two here or there might be the difference between finishing in second place or in 10th place.

Table 2 below shows the updated odds for each team to win or share the Big Ten regular season title.

Table 2: Updated Big Ten regular season odd for 12/12/2020


As expected, based on the Kenpom and expected win totals, Iowa now also projects to have the best odds to win the Big Ten regular season title at 32 percent. Wisconsin has now dropped to second place at 28 percent, while Ohio State, Michigan, and Illinois all check in with odds between 14 and 15 percent.

The Spartans’ odds now project at about 12 percent, down from 18 percent a month ago. Overall, there is a 62 percent chance that either 14 or 15 wins will be enough to hang a banner this year, and almost a 20 percent chance that 16 wins or more will be necessary.

Strength of Schedule Update

Interestingly, the updated Kenpom values have also impacted the overall conference strengths of schedules, which are updated below in Figure 1.


Figure 1: Updated Big Ten strengths of schedules, raw (left) and corrected (right), for 12/12/2020

I spent a lot of words recently discussing how Wisconsin had a very significant schedule advantage over the rest of the conference. The updated data in mid-December tells a slightly different story. While Wisconsin still figures to have the easiest conference slate, Illinois is now less than a tenth of a win behind.

There is also a clear second tier of teams with slightly easier schedules (by about 0.2 wins) including Purdue, Maryland, and Michigan. The Spartans fall into the next tier of seven teams 0.2 wins behind the second tier. Poor Nebraska and Northwestern are still bringing up the rear.

This data explains why the Illini and Wolverines have a slight edge in Big Ten conference regular season odds over MSU, despite the fact that the three teams have almost identical Kenpom efficiencies. It should also be noted that Iowa still has a relatively difficult conference schedule which is currently preventing them from having even a larger lead in regular seasons odds.

Big Ten Tournament Update

While the Big Ten Tournament is still a long ways away, it is always fun to look at what the possible seeding and odds might look like. Table 3 gives the updated seed odds and distribution, based on the updated Kenpom data.

Table 3: Big Ten Tournament seed odds as of 12/12/2020


In general, the order of the teams in this matrix is going to mirror the expected win totals shown in Table 1. Iowa projects to have the best odds to capture the No. 1 seed, while Michigan State now projects to fall to the No. 6 seed. That said, the odds distributions are very broad, as expected for what is projected to be a tight race. MSU still projects to have a 38 percent change to capture a double bye.

I should also point out the column in Table 3 labeled “if favorites win.” These seeds represent the scenario that will occur if the projected favorite wins of all remaining Big Ten games. This is technically the most likely individual scenario, and I believe this scenario will be the most interesting one to follow as the season progresses.

Most, if not all, conference tournament projections use the concept of “if the season ended today.” But if you think about it, this makes little to no actual sense. The only thing that matters is where the teams land at the end of the season, not on some arbitrary date in mid-February.

Right now, if the projected favorites all win every game, Wisconsin would win the conference outright with a record of 14-6. In second, there is a four-way tie at 13-7 between Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois and Iowa and ironically, Iowa would lose the tiebreakers and fall to the No. 5 seed and out of the double bye tier. Michigan State would finish in a tie for sixth place with Indiana and Rutgers at 12-6.

Just for fun, the simulated results of the Big Ten Tournament are shown below in Table 4 for the scenario where the favorites all win.

Table 4: Simulated Big Ten Tournament odds with seedings where all favored teams win


In this case, the fact the Iowa loses the tiebreakers and drops to the No. 5 seed clearly impacts the Hawkeyes’ odds. As a result, Wisconsin once again checks in with the best odds at 18 percent, although this is a drop of three percentage points from the preseason.

As for MSU, I project the Spartans’ current odds to win the Big Ten Tournament to be just eight percent, which is half of what I projected a month ago. Most of this drop is due to dropping out of the double-bye tier, which as I demonstrated previously is worth around six percentage points.

This all said, there is still a fair amount that we don’t know about each Big Ten team, as the vast majority of games have been played against mid- or low-major teams. As Big Ten wins and loses pile up and more data accumulates, the picture will start to snap into focus.

I will check in periodically as Big Ten play progresses to see how these numbers change. Until next time, as always, enjoy and Go Green.

Pre-Snap Read: Michigan State vs Penn State

By Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com


East Lansing, Mich. - Michigan State has played only six games, but it feels like a full season, doesn’t it?

No complaints here.

Now we have a 2-4 team against a 2-5 team. But this game doesn’t feel like the unsightly slogger that those records would suggest.

Well, maybe the football won’t be all that great, but the effort will be good and there is more on the line than would normally be the case for a pair of 2-win teams in December.

The winner of this game will be in good shape for a bowl game, if there are bowl games.

The Florida bowl games seem intent upon staging their games, which means the Citrus and Outback Bowls are expecting to play. The same can likely be said for the Nashville bowl game and probably the Charlotte bowl game. Arizona? Who knows.

But if Ohio State makes the playoff and Northwestern (or Indiana or Iowa) gets invited to a New Years Six bowl game, then the Big Ten will have to fill five other slots if the aforementioned bowl games are played.

Those five slots will go to:
1. Indiana or Iowa, which ever team doesn’t go to a New Years Six game.
2. Northwestern
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?

Those three bowl slots will come from this group of teams:

* Wisconsin 2-2 (possibly soon to be 2-3 after it plays Iowa).
* The winner of the Minnesota-Nebraska game is either going to be 3-3 (Minnesota) or 3-4 (Nebraska).
* Penn State (2-5)
* Michigan State (2-4)
* Michigan (2-4)
* Purdue (2-4)
* Illinois (2-4)
* Maryland (2-2)
* Rutgers (2-5)

If Michigan State wins out and goes 4-4, the Spartans will go to a bowl, if there are bowls.

Same can be said if Penn State wins out. Or if Wisconsin wins out. Or if Purdue wins out. Or Illinois.

There are two games to play and there’s such a mosh pit mess in the bottom three-quarters of the conference that every program is basically still alive.

It’s the most muddled-up bowl picture ever for the Big Ten, yet this is the least we’ve ever heard the Big Ten bowl picture ever discussed. Probably because few people completely understand what’s going on.

In case you didn’t hear, the NCAA waved all the usual record standards needed to play in a bowl game. If a bowl game invites you, or perhaps more accurately if your conference deems you bowl-worthy, then you can play in any bowl game that will have you.

The next question is how many of these teams would WANT to play in a bowl game with a losing record. Michigan State will probably want to. But at 3-5, I don’t think Michigan State would get invited, and rightfully so - although a 3-5 record in all-Big Ten play this year is the same record Mark Dantonio had in his first year. But that Michigan State team was 4-0 in the non-conference. That included a nice win over Notre Dame and three padded victories. Major conference teams don’t have those padded victories this year and that’s one of the reasons we see so many major conference teams with losing records and one of the reasons we see so many mid-major teams in the Top 25.

**

So if you’re still reading this article, congratulations. You’re into it. You want to see another Michigan State game, and another, and another, and you are hoping for progress. So is Mel Tucker. Give yourself a helmet sticker.

**

Meanwhile this game between Penn State and Michigan State isn’t a game between 2-5 and 2-4, if you view it through the lens of adding three or four non-conference wins to each team’s record. Maybe PSU is actually a 6-5 team and Michigan State is actually a 6-4 team. (I know, I know. If Michigan State had played its non-conference games this year against Miami and a stupidly-scheduled BYU game, there’s no way the Spartans would be 6-4. But we’re in fantasy hypothetical world right now, and try to view this through the lens of non-conference seasons past. Not counting Arizona State losses.)

Anyway, PSU and Michigan State are still in the process of trying to prove they are not as bad as their records indicate. And one of these teams might succeed in doing that, and get a date to Nashville or something like that. If there are bowl games. And you’re still interested.

THIS WEEK’S CHALLENGES

1. STOP THE QB RUN

Michigan State was terrible in this area last week against Ohio State. Ohio State is very good in the QB run game, and the QB pass threat off of it, with Justin Fields the very best in the country at the dual threat.

Penn State’s Sean Clifford, and his understudy Will Levis, are good runners. Better than most. And Penn State uses the QB run more than any team Michigan State will play all season.

So this is a perfect situation for both teams.

Michigan State needs to show it has worked on its ability to stop the QB run.

Penn State is eager to see if Michigan State has improved in that area.


2. PAYTON THORNE'S FIRST START?

If Payton Thorne gets his first career start, will he look as dual-threat capable as he did in mop-up duty against the two best teams in the Big Ten? Or will things get tougher for him if he has the mental load of being the starter and must go all four quarters with that responsibility?

You’ll find out when I do.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Penn State has won two straight after the worst start (0-5) in school history.

The results:
L 35-36 at Indiana
L 38-25 vs Ohio State
L 19-35 vs Maryland
L 23-30 at Nebraska
L 21-41 at Iowa
W 27-17 at Michigan
W 23-7 at Rutgers

Penn State was truly terrible in a 35-19 loss to Maryland in week three, after losses to Indiana and Ohio State.

PSU was pretty messy at Maryland.

PSU sparred with Iowa for a little while, but it didn’t take long for the dam to break.

PSU wasn’t that great against Michigan, but Michigan was worse.

PSU was pretty good last week against Rutgers, causing PSU observers to feel that they have gotten their defense squared away after some terrible leaks earlier in the season, and the QB power run game is capable of beating the bottom half of the Big Ten when the Nittany Lions aren’t turning it over and giving up big plays.

That last half of the formula: QB run game and not turning it over and not allowing big plays? If PSU checks all three of those boxes again this week, then they’ll win by two and a half TDs.

PSU THE MACRO

* Overall, I’ve detected some losing quality control leaks on this team in pass protection, gap integrity, safety responsibility. Not necessarily athletic shortcomings, just pure quality control slippage. Perhaps not a good sign for the near future of the program unless Franklin can crack some discipline.

* At QB, Penn State has a pair of good runners, Drew Stanton style. Not overly explosive. Deceptively quick in the short area, shifty, awkward. The back-up QB Levis is physical.

Very erratic throwers. CLifford has very little confidence in the pocket. As is the case with many Big Ten QBs this year, he often holds the ball too long in the pocket. Unlike Fields, who finds things when he holds the ball a long time in the pocket, Clifford never seems to improve his situation by holding the ball, never seems to find anyone, often enough.

The WRs are decent, not great. Probably similar to Michigan State. They have a freshman, Washington, who is going to be a good one and had nine catches against Michigan. The Wolverines have been a friendly slump buster for passing games.

The replacement TE (filling in for the injured All-America candidate Freiermuth) is tough but not yet the chain-mover he will be in the future.

The replacement RBs (filling in for the injured Journey Brown and Noah Cain) are pretty good, better than MSU’s running backs.

The offensive line is mediocre. They have trouble with stunts on the right side. First-year OL coach Phil Trautwein came from Boston College. If that name sounds familiar, Trautwein camped at Michigan State as a recruit for three days when Jeff Stoutland was the OL coach under John L Smith. He’s from New Jersey. He signed with Florida, then transferred to Boston College. He’s made a fairly quick trek up the coaching ladder. But the right side of his o-line has trouble with stunts.

On defense, they were leaky against Maryland, but have been better the last two weeks - albeit against a scattershot Michigan passing attack (with Milton horrible and McNamara banged up) and against a mediocre Rutgers passing attack on a very windy day in Piscataway.

So I’m not ready to put this pass defense in the much-improved category just yet. However, Michigan State isn’t exactly Air Coryell. Nothing against Rocky Lombardi, but if Lombardi starts, I think we can expect a sub-.500 percent performance with more INTs than TDs. If Thorne starts, he will likely outproduce the passing attacks of Michigan and Rutgers.

Which means Michigan State might be in position to win the game if the three other matchups go reasonably well:

* MSU’s run defense should keep PSU’s tailbacks in check, as was the case against Indiana, Northwestern and even Ohio State (outside of the zone read option handoff that went for 64 yards. Michigan State will see that exact same look this week. PSU is heavy on the QB run plays, although PSU doesn’t run the zone read option all that much. But they will this week because Michigan State struggled with it so much last week).

So I’m expecting Michigan State to contain PSU’s tailbacks.

As for containing the Penn State QB run game, that’s a wildcard. They do it pretty well, with physical QB powers and designed QB zone plays. They aren’t overly explosive with it, but they can move chains with it.

That’s a big percentage of this game. If Michigan State contains the QB run plays, and stops the tailbacks, then Clifford has to beat you from the pocket. He’s not good at that.

Clifford will complete the occasional slant pass, especially off of RPOs. But anything beyond 10 yards downfield is a crap shoot. Most times, he stands in the pocket and reads and reads, and then takes off and runs - often for nice gains. Contain that and Michigan State is a step closer to victory.

How do you contain that? I suspect they worked more on dual linebacker spying, which basically means LBs playing at LB depth in zone coverage with more focus on the QB tuck than usual.

That might also mean less man-to-man than usual. That shouldn’t be a problem. Michigan State isn’t a drastically heavy man-to-man team.

* As for MSU’s ground game, the Spartans don’t have much spunk there. They had a surprisingly strong game against Northwestern (195 yards), but fizzled last week.

They went back to work this week, wanting to build on the 3.0 and 3.3 yards per carry averages they had against Iowa and Indiana, and then 195 yards against Northwestern, and what they thought was a good practice week against Maryland, forget the Ohio State beating as a mulligan, and get back in their own weight class this week against Penn State hoping to establish some sort of ground game again.

PSU is decent against the run at defensive tackle, although a little bit sleepy and inconsistent in there.

The LBs are decent, but not nearly as good as they would have been if All-America candidate Micah Parsons hadn’t opted out.

The LB play for Penn State is par for the course for MSU’s opponents this year, after seeing Iowa, Indiana’s McFadden, Ohio State’s horses (even without Borland) and Northwestern’s Paddy Fisher and Gallagher. Even Rutgers’ LBs were the strength of that defense (although the DTs turned out to be pretty good). Michigan’s LBs were the weakest Michigan State has faced all year.

PSU’s secondary is the x-factor. They were horrid against Maryland. They were better last week, helped by the wind. They have one good corner. I don’t know what to make of the safeties. They were out to lunch against Maryland. They didn’t get much of a test against Michigan and Rutgers. Lombardi wouldn’t test them very much either. But Thorne against the PSU safeties? That’s where this game could be decided.

PSU’s edge pass rush is pretty good, but so was Michigan’s (at the time), and so was Northwestern’s (which was completely neutralized). OSU got home for one sack against left tackle AJ Arcuri. Arcuri has been good most of the year, but he got caught a little off-balance on that play, gave up a sack, and Lombardi was hurt on the play.

Overall, Arcuri is a functional-to-solid Big Ten blind side protector. PSUs d-ends have some juice, but I don’t think edge pass rush pressure is going to be a consistent problem for Michigan State in this game. Maybe one or two rushes get home. PSU also likes to bring nickel slot 25 Hardy on slot blitzes, sometimes for loud plays. There will be alerts for that.

Overall, I think Thorne will have enough time to do whatever it is he is capable of doing, and we still don’t know what that is.


A CLOSER LOOK AT THOSE LOSSES

To know your opponent this week, you HAVE to go back and sort through the carnage of those losses to Nebraska and Maryland. Big plays and turnovers caused PSU to fall behind 35-7 to Maryland and 24-3 to Nebraska.

It’s hard enough to fall behind by those numbers. But when you have very shaky QB pass skill on your team, which is the case with PSU this year, forget it.

Against Maryland:

7-0 on a 42-yard switch release cross route for a TD. DB Tariq Castro-Fields peeked in the backfield while in man-to-man vs a switch release and gave up leverage. Not sure where the safeties were.

14-0 on the same damn exact play, this time for about 64 yards. I don’t know when I’ve ever seen a team come back so early in the game and get the exact same result on the exact same play. This time, the safeties were in a two-deep (with man under). They should have been able to chase this one down. It’s not like PSU was caught in a zero blitz. but with the way the WR ran free on these two plays, PSU might as well have had 9 players on the field on defense.

21-0 on a 38-yard TD run on a short side sweep. PSU with too many moving parts on defense on this play: a stunt vacated the edge, which turned out to be the point of attack; two LBs faked a blitz and dropping into coverage, but it wasn’t a pass play; slot blitz from the field didn’t get there. PSU shot paper and Maryland shot scissors.

All three times, the safeties were out to lunch.

28-7: PSU CB Joey Porter, usually a good player, was out to lunch. He allowed a WR to waltz past him down the sideline while Porter stared in the backfield like an flashlight-shone doe at night in Roscommon.

Meanwhile, PSU QB Sean Clifford began 6 of 18 through the air. Maryland played good coverage, I’ll give them that.

35-7 on first drive of the 2H on a Maryland defensive score (QB Clifford held the ball too long on an RPO, sack fumble, scoop and score.

[That’s one of the few times I’ve seen an RPO work against a team. By design, RPOs call for the offensive line to run block; but the QB might pull it out and pass. Remember, the o-line isn’t run blocking. The d-line has to check up and play the run first, and that provides the de facto pass protection in that the d-line has to hold up and play the run. But once the jig is up and it’s a pass play, then the QB needs to get rid of it on time because his o-linemen are not pass protecting.]


Against Nebraska:

- 52-yard INT return to the red zone. Fell behind 10-0. Clifford missed high and inside on an out route to the wide side of the field. He shouldn’t be asked to attempt that throw. And I don’t think he’s attempted it since.

- PSU allowed a 45-yard TD on a pop sweep. PSU had both safeties deep and they just didn’t react. Made it 17-3.

- PSU fell behind 24-3 on a sack fumble scoop, score. That was another zone read RPO. He pulled it out, the pass wasn’t immediately there, was hung out to dry for the poke fumble scoop and score.

For the most part, the RPO game is one of the things Clifford does pretty well. But he, and PSU showed, that if you do it too many times with a shaky QB, you might turn it over on a sack. Happened twice for key plays in both of these strange losses.


* When Penn State was 0-5, they were -9 in turnover margin, ranking No. 124 in the country. Sound familiar?

LAST WEEK

* PSU out-gained Rutgers 381-204 in a 23-7 victory over the Scarlet Knights.

* PSU allowed only two first downs in the first half.

* Rutgers went into the game averaging 30.8 points per game. But Rutgers had just 12 first downs, 83 yards rushing and was 3-of-15 on third down and 1-of-4 on fourth down.

“I just think that we’ve gone back to play playing how we played for it over six years, which is, you know, making sure to limit explosive plays.” said PSU coach James Franklin.

PENN STATE’S OFFENSIVE STYLE

* It’s not at all the chuck-and-duck throw deep McSorley Penn State. They’ll throw the 20-yard fade along the sideline once in awhile on third down or if you press the slot on second down. But they don’t deep drop and throw the 40-yard post that I’ve seen.

* New offensive coordinator, as they poached Kirk Ciarrocca from Minnesota after former PSU OC Ricky Rahne fled to become head coach at Old Dominion (Rahne was indeed on the call list for MSU’s head hunting firm when the Spartans were looking to replace Mark Dantonio last February. He was on the C-list and there was some dialogue).

Ciarrocca has a good reputation, but he doesn’t have a trustworthy, consistent QB this year like he had at Minnesota last year.

* In the red zone they REALLY like the QB run pays, whether it’s a QB draw, or QB power. They trust Clifford more with his legs than throwing lawn darts to the end zone.

* Things seem pretty predictable with their offense in recent weeks. Most things begin with a QB/RB mesh read.

They read what you’re doing on defense vs the slot, and make somewhat predictable reads off of it.

If you play press coverage on the slot WR, they are going to leave the ball with the RB and you’d better stop the inside zone run.

QB might pull it out and keep it although they don’t feature the zone read keeper as much as other QB keepers. (That could change this week due to MSU’s problems with it last week).

If you play off coverage vs the slot WR, then the QB will pull it out and throw to the free releasing slot WR on slants or outs, or the occasional bubble.

The slant pass is one thing Clifford does pretty well, especially off the RPO. Hence the run the RPO quite a bit, to the point that it got them in trouble on big play turnovers against Maryland and Nebraska. Maybe he learned from those mistakes. He didn’t start against Iowa, but regained the starting job and maybe is a little less mistake-prone lately.

Michigan State’s varied coverages forced uncharacteristic Northwestern’s QB into mistakes last week. I thought there was a chance Michigan State could do the same with Fields last week, especially after the problems Fields had against Indiana’s hieroglyphics. But Fields tucked and ran rather than trying to beat MSU’s hieroglyphics with his arm. Good move.

Now, can MSU’s hieroglyphics cause problems for Clifford? Probably not a lot. He’s more likely to take a sack or tuck-and-scramble than try to find arm glory. Contain the scramble.

Contain the scramble. Play defense like you’re a sweeper at Denny’s at 3 a.m.

* If your slot defender is somewhere between off and press, and PSU has two TEs to one side of the formation, then that’s an easy call for the QB. It’s a QB green light run all the way, to the strong side.

(Except for the time they QB ran power to the weak side for Clifford’s 28-yard TD against Michigan. That’s football. Plant a flag).

* Overall, PSU has become a power-oriented, QB-run type of team this year. It’s not pretty. But if they couple it with good defense, it might help them squeeze out a 4-5 record in the regular season. Kind of reminds me of PJ Fleck’s first two years at Minnesota: 5-7 and 7-6 (with non-conference padding).

* PSU likes the inside zone run. Check this out: PSU began the Michigan game with an inside zone run to the strong side (two TEs over there).

That play gained 7 yards.

PSU came back in the very next snap with THE EXACT SAME PLAY.

Very Woody Hayes of them.

They gained 5 yards. First down!

That’s a mindset of physicality that PSU is trying to establish.

* Through they air, they prefer to keep it simple. They throw to the slot WR when he has an open release, either on slants or short out routes.


* Both QB run well, on scrambles, zone read keepers, counter keepers, Wildcat “plus one” style keepers. They check in and out of the game like basketball players, which keeps them reasonably fresh.

They feature the QB run but they don’t wear out the starter Clifford because he checks out presumably for breathers, and also because there are situations in which Levis’s running is preferred, such as deep red zone and short yardage. Then Levis comes in and runs the ball.

In terms of using two running QBs, I haven’t seen many teams use this approach in the spread option era. I’m sure other programs have done it, but the only team I’ve seen do it was the Ferris State team that played for a National Championship a couple of years ago. I thought at the time that that was an interesting way to do things which could be quite effective when used properly. I’m not sure if that philosophy over the long haul would be good for recruiting. But I think it can work for some programs, especially middleweight programs.

As for PSU, not much worked for the Nittany Lions in the first five games. So it’s not like PSU is conquering the world with this approach, but it sure gave Michigan and Rutgers headaches in the last two weeks.

* Due to PSU’s QB runs, it makes you want to play less man-to-man than usual. Michigan State has worked on enough different facets of zone coverages that Michigan State should be able to play less man-to-man than usual while not showing the same zone coverage play after play.


* Against Rutgers, PSU leaned heavily on the QB run game in the 1Q, and then mixed in a play action RPO pass slant for a 29-yard TD.

* Rutgers stupidly stuck with a two-deep for the entire first half, agreeing to be a man short in the box, and two men short in the box against the QB run.

* PSU had 13 turnovers heading into the Rutgers games, the second most in the Big Ten.

* In short yardage, PSU goes with No. 7 at QB in Will Levis. He will keep the ball on Wildcat keepers, often behind a sixth offensive lineman plus a TE and an H-back. He’s a big QB, keeps his legs pumping. Ground and pound Penn State.

* As much of a QB-run team PSU has become, they don’t do a lot of QB zone read option per se. But they will likely test Michigan State with it because the Spartans struggled vs zone read option last week.

Most of PSU’s QB rush yardage comes on designed keepers, and QB powers and the occasional QB scramble.

The QB scramble was a horrible problem for Michigan State last week. Clifford and Levis are good on the ground. Not as good as Justin Fields, but good enough to roll up yards and move the chains against Michigan State with the QB run if Michigan State isn’t quite a bit better in this area this week. PSU will gladly test it.

PENN STATE PERSONNEL

QB 14 SEAN CLIFFORD (6-2, 217, Jr., Cincinnati St. Xavier)
* Was a 5.9 four-star recruit, ranked No. 5 in Ohio and No. 161 in the nation.

* He still has another season or two to prove me wrong, but so far he isn’t living up to that recruiting ranking. But it’s hard to judge how well someone will read things in the pocket. His out route INT at Nebraska, however, was … not four-star worthy.
* He was better in the pocket against Rutgers than in the past in terms of side-stepping and buying time.

Clifford this year:
vs Indiana: 24-35 for 238 yards with 3 TDs, 2 INTs

vs OSU: 18-30 for 281 yards with 3 TDs, 1 INT

vs Maryland: 37-57 340 yards with 3 TDs, 2 INTs

vs Nebraska: 5-8 37 yards with 0 TDs 1 INT

vs Iowa: 13-22 174 yards, with 2 TDs, 2 INTs

vs Michigan: 17-28 for 163 yards with 0 TDs, 0 INTs

vs Rutgers: 15-22 for 133 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT


CLIFFORD RUSHING:
17 carries 119 vs Indiana
18 carries 5 yards vs OSu
17 carries 26 yards vs Maryland
6 carries 19 yards against Nebraska
6 carries 13 yards against Iowa
9 carries 73 yards against Michigan
8 carries 21 yards against Rutgers


* Struggled on third-and-medium against Michigan when you fog up the slot receiver and make him pass for the pocket. Patted the ball and sacked as RG failed to pick up a stunt in this situation on third-and-four.

The combination of an unsure QB, faulty stunt pick-up, and receivers who aren’t world-beaters in getting off of coverage and you get a messy coverage sack. Looked like an 0-5 team on that play.

+ Gain of 32 on a scramble keeper, catching Michigan in man-to-man. Key play when PSU was leading 17-10 in the third quarter.

* Began the Maryland game 6-of-18.

- Against Nebraska, attempted a 12-yard out route to the wide side of the field. Doesn’t sound like an ambitious throw, and it’s not, for the real good throwers. Clifford is not a good thrower.

He left this one high and inside. Intercepted and returned 55 yards to the PSU 14-yard line. A few plays later, PSU was down 10-0.

+ Last week: 29-yard TD pass to freshman WR Washington on an RPO slant. (An RPO meaning that the QB could have left the ball in the gut of the RB for an inside zone run. The o-line was run blocking, not pass blocking).

* Doesn’t throw the fade well, although he connected on one for a 20-yard TD against Maryland.

* Throws the slant well and his WRs run the slant well. Kalon Gervin had a little trouble in allowing too much separation on a slant last week and needs to tighten that screw.

* PSU has gotten the ball out of his hands quicker in the last two games, not holding it in the pocket as long.

* Earlier in the season probably got caught trying to do too much. He spent some time on the bench and has come back a little more in control of things.

* Scored on a 28-yard QB power TO THE WEAK SIDE vs Michigan. Michigan’s DE Paye and LB Josh Ross weren’t on the same page and ended up in the same gap. Nice change-up by PSU here. They had two TEs to the short side, but ran power to the weak side. Usually, they favor the QB run to the strong side behind those double-barrel tight ends.

* Gain of 20 on a scramble-to-throw to WR Washington vs Michigan’s drop-eight on a third-and-long in the 2Q. Clifford has good legs and is a decent short-range passer but this was one of the few times I’ve seen him mix the scramble with the throw. It wasn’t an all-out scramble, it was a flushed-and-throw. That’s something Clifford needs to do more of.

* PSU will mix in the QB sweep. They did some speed option as well.

* They will pull the backside guard on speed option. Technically that’s power speed option. It’s a combination of two common things. But I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it in the spread era.

* He didn’t turn if over against Michigan, marking the first time he and PSU could say that.

vs Rutgers: 133 yards
* Despite the wind at Rugers last week, he began 8-of-11 and 10-of-14 in the first half.


(QB 7 Will Levis, 6-3, 222, Soph., Madison, Conn.,)
* Pronounced LEV-iss)
* Strong guy, power runner for a QB. Kind of a Tebow type of runner.
* Started against Iowa when PSU was 0-4.
* Took 17 snaps last week against Rutgers.

* Has settled in lately as a Wildcat choice as a pure runner in short yardage and goal line situations. However, he CAN throw it decently so you can’t entirely load up to stop the run when he’s in at QB on third-and-two.

* Levis had 10 carries in the first half last week.

* They’ve used two QBs most of the year, but last week it was the most well-choreographed. It wasn’t series by series, it was play by play.

LEVIS PASSING STATS:

He was 14-of-31 for 219 yards against Nebraska, including a 74 yarder on a scramble coverage bust.

He was 13-16 for 106 yards against Iowa.

He didn’t attempt a pass in the four other games, including the last two games.

LEVIS RUSHING STATS
18 rushes for 61 against Nebraska
15 for 34 against iowa
6 for 25 against Michigan
17 for 65 against Rutgers

* 14 yard run on a power read keeper.

* Strong legs, somewhat deceptively quick feet, eats yards like a slightly bigger Drew Stanton.

- He checked in and ran a QB wildcat keeper on fourth-and-1 and barely made it on the opening drive last week.

* QB counter keeper with two pullers for a gain of 13 behind a pretty good double team block by the RG/RT last week.

* Levis reportedly has a strong arm but he hasn’t attempted anything down the field. He must not be accurate.

- Poor speed option pitch fumble in the 2Q vs Iowa, set the table for Iowa to take 17-7 lead.

* 2-yard TD run with 8 minutes to go vs Michigan extended a 3-point lead to 27-17. Designed deeper to the two-TE side. No secrets there.



RUNNING BACK:

PSU is without Journey Brown (medically retired. He had 12 TDs last year) and Noah Cain (went down with a season-ending injury on the opening drive of the season; he had 8 rushing TDs last year, a PSU freshman record).

RB 28 DEVYN FORD (5-11, 198, Soph., Stafford, Va.)
* Was a 6.0 four-star recruit, ranked No. 2 in Virginia and No. 40 in the nation.
* 11 carries 65 yards, 1 TD last week.
* Had his best game of the year in some ways last week.
* Fumbled at his own 40-yard line last week.
* Has yet to break 70 yards rushing in a game this season.
* Averaging 4.0 yards per carry.

RB 24 KEYVONE LEE 6-0, 230, St. Petersburg, Fla.
* Was a 5.8 four-star recruit, ranked No. 42 in Florida.
* Averaging 5.6 yards per carry and 46 yards rushing per game.
* Doesn’t look 230 pounds at first glance, but a lot of it is in his legs. He’s built kind of like the college version of Le’Veon Bell. Lee runs hard, like a 230-pounder should.
* Rushed for 134 yards (22 carries) against Michigan. That’s the most by a freshman RB in the Big Ten this year.
* He started in place of Ford at Michigan. Ford missed the game due to a family funeral.


WR 5 JAHAN DOTSON (5-11, 182, Jr., Nazareth, Pa.)
* Was a 5.9 four-star recruit, ranked No. 5 in Pennsylvania and No. 164 in the nation.

* Leads team with 38 catches averaging 15.4 yards per catch and 83 yards receiving per game.

* Had 27 catches last year.

+ Connected with him on a double-slants on third-and-three for a 6-yard gain early in the 4Q vs Michigan in a 20-17 game. Not the prettiest route or throw and QB looked hesitant.

+ Maybe the most important play of the game against Michigan, turned a slant release into a return route against zone on third-and-7 for a 12-yard gain with 9:07 to play and PSU up by 3 points. Clifford telegraphed the throw and it wasn’t the most difficult pass, but he made it work.

* He some explosiveness.

+ Nice 20-yard TD on fade vs Maryland, Dotson went up and nabbed a jump ball.


WR 3 PARKER WASHINGTON (5-10, 205, Fr., Sugar Land, Texas)
* Was a 5.8 four-star recruit, ranked No. 22 in Texas and No. 158 in the nation.
* 31 catches, averaging 54 receiving yards per game.
+ 28 yard TD vs Rutgers on a nice RPO.
* Had nine catches against Michigan (93 yards), a PSU record for a true freshman.
+ Gained 20 on a slant against Michigan on the opening drive, showing good balance to withstand hits and break tackles.
* Star in the making. Nice hands and leaping ability to go high for finger-tip catches.


TE 86 BRENTON STRANGE (6-3, 248, R-Fr., Parkersburg, WVa.)
* Was a 5.8 four-star recruit, ranked No .221 in the nation.
* Has become the starting TE after Pat Freiermuth was lost to an injury. Freiermuth is considered by some to be the No. 1 NFL Draft prospect at TE this year. Tough loss for PSU.
+ Went to him on a third-and-medium on a short curl to keep the opening drive alive. He had two more catches on the opening drive.
* One catch for four yards against Michigan.
* Hard-headed blocker. Gets north as a blocker at the point of attack and hits hard. PSU coaches like his toughness and I can see why. He’s going to be a plus at TE in the future.


OFFENSIVE LINE
* Was strong last week, cohesive with inside zone and outside zone.
* O-line struggles on the right side vs stunts.

PSU gained 133 yards on the ground in the first half last week.


LT RASHEED WALKER (6-6, 310, Soph., Waldorf, Md.)
* Was a 6.0 four-star recruit, ranked No. 2 in Maryland and No. 65 in the nation.
+ Graded 85.3 (B+/Winning Performance) last week in pass pro.
- Allowed a “look out” pressure to QB Levis against Nebraska, resulting in a scramble and throw for 74 yards. Walker looked like he was zone blocking on a pass play. He knew immediately he had gaffed, and turned to the QB and yelled “look out!” Quality control.

LG MIKE MIRANDA (6-3, 301, Jr., Stow, Ohio)
* 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 15 in Ohio.
+ Graded 83.7 (B+/Winning) last week in pass pro.
- Allowed a hit on QB Clifford low to the knees vs Michigan.

C MICHAL MENET (6-4, 306, Sr., Birdsboro, Pa.)
* 5.9 four-star recruit, ranked No. 3 in Pennsylvania and No. 87 in the nation.
* No opinion.

RG 71 WILL FRIES (6-6, 306, Sr., Cranford, NJ)
* 5.8 four-star recruit, ranked No. 9 in New Jersey.
* Substandard for a Penn State right guard.
- Struggled in pass pro last week, grading at 33.6 (F).
- Allowed sack on a stunt on third-and-four against Michigan.
- Didn’t look good on a holding on third-and-medium against Iowa in the 2Q.

RT 53 CAEDAN WALLACE (6-5, 313, R-Fr., Robbinsville, NJ)
* 6.0 four-star recruit, ranked No. 2 in New Jersey and No. 69 in the nation.
+ Graded at 74.8 in pass pro.
- Didn’t withstand a hard bull rush by a slender d-end last week. Hit and rip move beat him to the outside to hold a QB sweep to no gain.
* Not bad against Michigan’s Kwity Paye.


DEFENSE

* PSU ranks No. 4 in the Big Ten in total defense and yards allowed per play, No. 6 in rush defense. Those numbers are a little better than I expected.

* Nothing too dominant or unique on this defense.

* Not a heavy blitz/man team but played a lot of blitz/press/man in the second half against Michigan.

* On third-and-five against Michigan, they showed press and pressure and caused QB McNamara to throw a hot route short out, but PSU dropped into a drop-eight, and all the lanes were closed.

* Played well on defense the past two weeks.

* They were a poor-tackling team when 0-5, even Matt Millen could see that. But PSU has addressed it and tackled better last week.

* Gap errors against Michigan:
- Allowed a 14-yard blast to UM’s Chris Evans when LB 10 bit on a fly sweep fake and got out of his gap.

- Allowed a 59-yard run to UM’s Hasaan Haskins.

On that play, DT Mustipher tried to cross face and slant. Michigan guard Filiaga took Mustipher in the direction he was slanting and kept pushing him and pushing him out of the screen.

Mustipher should have recognized the resistance and tried to anchor, but he just got swept out of the way.

Meanwhile, PSU MLB Luketa (40) misread backfield flow or didn’t know Mustipher was going to cross-face and slant. Either way, Mustipher and MLB Luketa were not on the same page.

And Mustipher got swept away in the process. And then safety Lamont Wade missed an open field tackle at 15 yards.

* Michigan’s RB Haskins rushed for 101 yards on 17 carries, including a long of 59.

* QB Joe Milton was 1 of 3 for 21 yards. QB McNamara of Michigan was 12 of 25 for 91 yards with 0 TDs 0 INTs.

* (Rutgers’ defense has regressed. I saw three egregious gap integrity errors in run defense in the first 20 minutes last week for two chunk plays and a 7-yard TD on the ground. Good job on the ground by PSU, but Rutgers helped.)


DEFENSIVE LINE
* D-ends are more slippery and quick, dangerous on third-and-long. DTs are solid.

DE 18 SHAKA TONEY (6-3, 252, Sr., Philadelphia)
* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit, ranked No. 29 in Pennsylvania. Was a 6-3, 193-pound linebacker at the time.
* Has 19.5 career sacks, good for No. 10 all time at Penn State.
* Will operate as a stand-up DE at times.
* Good speed rush and rip for sack vs Iowa late in the 1H.
+ Versus the run: good job two-gapping Michigan’s TE Honigford, moving him back and setting the edge to stuff a third-and-two counter run in the 1H.
+ Pretty good with the bull rush, not just a speed rush guy.
+ Good take off and can turn the corner. Looked real good in doing it to get a hand on McNamara late in the game to force an INC.

DT 55 ANTONIO SHELTON (6-2, 327, Sr., Columbus, Ohio)
* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 52 in Ohio.
+ Good with one-gap penetration on third-and-one and fourth-and-one vs Michigan to help stuff both plays.


DT 97 PJ MUSTIPHER (6-4, 300, Jr., Owings Mills, Md.)
* Was a 5.9, four-star recruit, ranked No. 4 in Maryland and No. 107 in the nation.
* Inconsistent. Looks firm on some plays, and reasonably quick on others. Then he looks soft and slow on other plays.
* He can shoulder dip and arm-over reasonably well.
* Was road-graded out of the way by Michigan LG Chuck Filiaga during Hassan Haskins’ 59-yard run in the first quarter.
+ Beat a double-team on second-and-one for a TFL early in the 2Q vs Michigan.


(DT 53 Fred Hansard)
+ Good stoppage on fourth-and-short last week.
* SLowish
* Decently strong when the play is right at him, two-gapping the center and getting off to stop a fourth-and-one last week.

DE 41 JAYSON OWEH (6-5, 252, Soph., Howell, NJ)
* Was a 5.9 four-star recruit, ranked No. 3 in New Jersey and No. 140 in the nation.
* Has plus speed when pursuing to the sideline.
* Beautiful specimen, still learning how to play.



LINEBACKERS
* They stick with a 4-3 against three wide receivers on first and second down, feeling that No. 13 is athletic enough as a LB to cover the slot.
* Decent group, not spectacular. At times impressive, but these seem like athletic guys trying to find their feet.
* They mix it up a little. 40 is usually in the middle and 13 is usually vs the slot. But at the beginning of the 2H against Michigan, they had 40 vs the slot and 13 in the middle.


MLB 40 JESSE LUKETA (6-3, 242, Jr. Ottawa, Ontario)
* Played at Mercyhurst Prep in Erie, Pa.
* Was a 5.8 four-star recruit, ranked No. 10 in Pennsylvania.
+ Quicker than most with his backpedal in pass coverage.
* Lively fit, and he can bend his knees and deliver a blow to a blocker.

WLB 13 ELLIS BROOKS (6-1, 233, Jr., Mechanicsville, Va.)
* Was a 5.8 four-star recruit, ranked No. 8 in Virginia and No. 201 in the nation.
* No opinion

(10 Lance Dixon 6-2, 221, R-Fr., West Bloomfield, Mich.)
* Was a 5.8, four-star recruit, ranked No. 11 in Michigan.
* Was a summer commitment. Also took a summer official visit to Wisconsin.
* Has started one game this year.
- Dixon played 25 snaps last week as a back-up but was a little shaky against Michigan. Kind of slim, kind of lacking knack right now. But he’s fast and can change direction.
* has 10 tackles on the year and 2.5 TFLs.

WLB 12 BRANDON SMITH (6-3, 244, Louisa, Va.)
* Was a 6.0 four-star recruit, ranked No. 39 in the nation and No. 1 in Virginia.
* Plays the slot as PSU sticks with a 4-3 against 3-WR sets. Runs pretty well but is a little awkward. A good, versatile offense could test him and PSU’s philosophy of sticking with a 4-3 against 3-WR sets.
* This guy has size, range and speed but is he freak enough to play the slot against multi-WR teams? In zone, sure. In man-to-man? That’s a question defensive coordinators face all over the country, but few of them have a guy with these measureables.
* Runs really well. Very good change of direction rushing from the edge to thwart a fourth-down bootleg last week against Rutgers.
- Michigan attacked him on the first play of a drive in the 2Q with Ronnie Bell from the slot on an out route vs zone. 12 Smith couldn’t make the tackle and was in chase mode while safeties cleaned it up for a gain of about 20. That’s an instance in which Michigan made a team pay for sticking with a 4-3 against 3 WRs.


DEFENSIVE BACKS
* Played mostly man-to-man last week.
* Allowed a 42-yard TD and a 64-yard TD on the exact same simple switch release crossing route vs man-to-man. PSU had two safeties deep on the second one and that play shouldn’t get out like it did. The safeties were a little out to lunch. Quality control slippage.

CB 9 JOEY PORTER (6-2, 193, R-Fr., North Allegheny, Pa.)
* Was a 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 11 in Pennsylvania.
* Rangy guy, passes the eye test as a CB.
* Firm tackler for a CB.
* Tony Lippett type.
* Efficient with his footsteps, rangy with the close.
* Was a little gimpy with left lower leg midway through the Michigan game.
- Inexplicably allowed a WR to get by him while he basically stood still for a 34-yard TD, apparently mesmerized by watching Maryland’s QB rolling out.


CB 5 TARIQ-CASTRO FIELDS (6-0, 191, Sr., Upper Marlboro, Md.)
* Was a 5.8, four-star recruit, ranked No. 4 in Maryland.
* Was third-team All-Big Ten last year.
* Has been sidelined for four weeks with an undisclosed injury. James Franklin said this week that “theres a good chance we’re going to have Tariq this game.”
- Fields peeked in the backfield while in man-to-man vs a switch release and gave up leverage to a WR for a 42-yard TD early in the Maryland game.

(CB 25 Daequan Hardy)
* Watch 25 as a slot blitzer on third downs.
* 30 snaps last week as a back-up.
* Sack on a slot blitz as part of the nickel defense.
- Misjudged a deep fade to Michigan’s Henning and allowed a 30-yarder.
+ Slot blitz sack vs McNamara caused blind side fumble on third and long with 7:15 left.

CB 2 KEATON ELLIS (5-11, 186, Soph., State College, Pa.)
* Was a 5.8 four-star recruit, ranked No. 3 in Pennsylvania.
* No opinion.

(CB 8 Marquis Wilson)
* 43 snaps last week as a back-up.
* Good pass break-up on fourth down to stop Michigan’s opening drive.

FS 1 JAQUAN BRISKER (6-1, 212, Pittsburgh)
* Juco transfer, second year starter.
* Wsa a 5.8 three-star recruit, ranked the No. 29 juco prospect in the nation.

SS 38 LAMONT WADE (5-9, 187, Sr., Clairton, Pa.)
* Was a 6.1, five-star recruit, ranked No. 1 in Pennsylvania and No. 11 in the nation.
* Honorable mention All-Big Ten by coaches last year.
- Poor angle in allowing a crossing route get loose for a 42-yard TD pass early in the Maryland game.


SPECIAL TEAMS

PK/Kickoff: JORDAN STOUT, Jr.
* Made a 47-yard field goal in the wind last week.
* Has three field goals of 50 yards or more including a 57-yarder against Pitt.



ADD IT ALL UP

Michigan State can win this game, but they haven’t done enough, with enough consistently, for anyone to comfortably forecast that the type of game they played against Michigan or Northwestern is coming on a given weekend.

MSU’s body of work has been to frequently commit turnovers, or stall drives with penalties, creating just enough of a hole for themselves that their mediocre offense can’t come back from. The defense has been pretty good most weekends and was pretty good on most plays last week - but Michigan State needed a 12th defender in order to stop the QB run game last week. The NCAA makes you play with 11.

PSU used to be the same way, in terms of errors on offense, but PSU is further along in its evolution and looks more like a team worthy of a bowl game in Tennessee or North Carolina. Michigan State is close to a complete unknown at QB this weekend.

If Michigan State can contain the QB runs, and make Clifford throw from the pocket, the Spartans can hold Penn State under 24 points.

From there, what are the chances Michigan State gets solid productivity from its run game AND continued sparks from Thorne? Probably about the same as their chance of getting the run game going against Northwestern. As for Thorne, you’ll find out when I find out, if he plays that is. If he’s sharp with his decisions and escapability, Penn State’s safeties had better come back from lunch.

A few weeks back, I presented a three-part series in which I performed a detailed analysis of the Big Ten schedule. In Part One, I looked at the Big Ten conference slate and did some math related to the strength of each team’s schedule. The results suggested that MSU was given a schedule of average difficultly, while potential conference favorite Wisconsin (according to the Kenpom preseason projections) was given a remarkably easy schedule.

In Parts Two and Three, I made additional calculations based on Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the odds for each Big Ten team to win both the regular season title and the Big Ten Tournament Title. In both cases, Wisconsin also had the best preseason odds.

In the days that followed, the idea that the schedule was biased in favor of the Badgers weighed on my mind. I wondered if it would be possible to construct a schedule that was more fair. It soon became clear to me that I could use the same tools that I used to analyze the strength of each team’s Big Ten schedule to address this issue. Once I saw the entrance to the rabbit hole, I had to try to find the bottom.

Methodology

The first step was to craft an algorithm that would generate a random Big Ten conference schedule based on its current form. The schedules have each team playing a total of 20 games. Seven of the opponents are played twice (once at home and once away). The remaining six opponents are either played only at hone or only on the road. With a bit of work, I was able to write some simple code that allowed me to generate random schedules for the entire conference fairly quickly.

Once I accomplished this, I needed to define a way to quantify the “fairness” of a given, random set of schedules. In Part One of the series referenced above, I explained my methodology for calculating strength of schedule. The basic principle is to calculate the expected number of wins that an average Power Five teams (as good as, for example, Indiana) would earn with any given schedule. It is trivial to make this calculation for all 14 Big Ten schedules by using Kenpom efficiency data to estimate win probabilities for any set of Big Ten games.

I also performed a “corrected” version of this calculation by artificially adjusting the strength of one average Big Ten team (Indiana) to instead be equal to that of the team whose schedule is being analyzed. This corrects for a potential bias in the numbers due to the fact that weak teams and strong teams don’t play themselves.

In order to quantify the “fairness” of the entire Big Ten schedule, I calculated both the range and standard deviations of my calculated strengths of schedule (both regular and corrected) for all 14 individual schedules. In other words, I looked at the quantitative difference between the toughest and easiest schedules as well as the overall variance for all 14 schedules.

I then scanned the list of randomly generated schedules, searching for the one with the smallest standard deviation of corrected schedule strengths. I generated over 40,000 potential schedules and found the one with the smallest variance. This is perhaps the one of the most “optimized” schedule that can be created, based on the projected preseason strength of each team in 2020.

The Ideal Schedule

To refresh our memories, Table 1 below summarizes the actual 2020 Big Ten conference schedule. Relative to each row, the green cells represent the single-play home games while the orange cells are single-play road games. For example, MSU plays Wisconsin only once at home this year and only plays Maryland on the road.

Table 1: Visual summary of the 2020 Big Ten regular season basketball schedule


Without doing any math at all, it is easy to see why Wisconsin has such a schedule advantage. The Badgers are the only Big Ten team with two scheduled games against the four projected weakest teams in the conference (Maryland, Penn State, Northwestern, and Nebraska). Furthermore, the Badgers draw Kenpom’s No. 2 and No. 3 ranked teams (Ohio State and Michigan State) only once.

First, I was curious how the actual schedule compares to a set of randomly generated schedules, based on the “fairness” metrics described above. Figure 1 below makes this comparison.


Figure 1: Histogram of the over 40,000 randomly generated Big Ten schedules, based on the raw and corrected strengths of schedule range and variance

As the histograms above shows, not all schedules are created equally. Just based on range alone (the difference between the hardest and easiest schedule) some full conference schedules can differ by over a game and a half in expected wins. However, it is possible to find schedules where the team with the easiest schedule has less than a half of a win advantage over the team with the most difficult schedule.

If the raw, uncorrected strength of schedule values are considered (the blue bars), the real 2020 schedule is quite a bit less fair than the an average, random schedule based on both range and variance. If the corrected values are used (the orange bars), the 2020 schedule is average.

However, it is clearly possible to do better. If I select the individual schedule that showed the lowest observed corrected strength of schedule variance (located all the way to the left in the histogram in the right panel of Figure 1) that schedule looks like this:

Table 2: A potential "optimized" Big Ten conference schedule


While it is always difficult to compare one wall of numbers to another, the schedule shown in Table 2 looks a lot more fair on its face compared to the real schedule. First of all, there is much better balance at the bottom of the table. The top eight Big Ten teams all play the collective bottom four conference teams a total of six times. No team plays all four of these teams twice (as Wisconsin does in the actual schedule) and only two teams (Rutgers and Minnesota) play this collection of teams a total of seven times.

A similar balance is also found at the top of the table. Every team which the exception of Illinois, Michigan, and Purdue, have exactly two single-play matchups among the top four projected Big Ten teams (Wisconsin, MSU, Ohio State, and Iowa). That all said, this schedule still seems challenging for Nebraska, which draws four single-play games amongst the bottom four Big Ten teams not named Nebraska.

A more quantitative comparison of the actual and optimized Big Ten schedules is shown below in Figure 2. In this case, the individual team schedules are ordered from easiest (left) to hardest (right) to make the comparison easier to see. Also, the left panel shows the “raw” strength and schedule calculation, while the right panel gives the corrected values which are what were used in the optimization.


Figure 2: Comparison of the raw (left) and corrected (right) strengths of schedule from the original schedule and optimized schedule

The data in both panels shows a clear difference in the two full conference schedules. For the raw strength of schedule calculation (left panel) the difference between the easiest schedule and ninth easiest schedule is over half a win in the actual schedule, but less than a quarter of a win in the optimized schedule.

In both cases, there is a drop off in expected win for two most difficult schedules. In both the actual and optimized scenarios, these schedules belong to Northwestern and Nebraska, the two teams that project to be the weakest in the Big Ten this year. This is no coincidence, as once again those two teams suffer from not getting to play themselves.

Fortunately, the corrected strength of schedule appears to handle for this problem. As the right panel shows, the full range of expended wins for an average power five team (i.e. strength of schedule) only differs by slightly over 0.3 wins which seems to be about as “fair” of a schedule that can be created. In the actual schedule, this range is almost 0.8 wins.

One could make the argument that the it would be better to optimize the schedule based on the raw strength of schedule values as opposed to the corrected values. After all, the left panel still suggests that Northwestern and Nebraska draw the short straw. On some level that is true.

However, a schedule optimized based on the raw strength of schedule values would effectively be creating a schedule that is easier for the weaker teams and harder for the stronger teams. While this seems like a nice gesture, what happens if Nebraska is actually much better than expected? In this scenario, the Huskers would suddenly have an advantage, simply because they were under-valued in the preseason. For this reason, I believe that the corrected values are the best way to find the most fair Big Ten schedule.

That said, there are a few aspects of the schedule that are still perhaps not ideal. For example, Michigan State and Michigan only play each other once. The same is true of Purdue and Indiana. In reality, it would be better if these types of rivalry games would be protected. There may be other constraints on scheduling of which I am not aware.

In any event, it would be simple to modify my algorithm to exclude any random schedule that does not meet these criteria. I am confident that this method can and perhaps should be used to create a better Big Ten schedule. If anyone in the MSU athletic department or the Big Ten office is reading this and would like my assistance, send me a direct message. (I am sort of kidding... but not really).

Impact of the Schedule

The strength of schedule calculations discussed above provide a pathway to create a schedule that is mathematically more fair. The next logical question is if the impact of a more level playing field actually matters. I touched on this issue briefly in the original series, but I would like to revisit the topic now that we have a more balanced schedule to compare to the original one.

For this study, I once again ran a series of Monte Carlo simulations on the full Big Ten season using both the actual Big Ten schedule and the optimized schedule shown in Table 2 above. This simulation outputs the odds for each Big Ten team to win the regular season Big Ten title (outright or shared). For here out in order to keep things simple, I will focus only on the results of the simulation for Wisconsin (the Kenpom presumed favorite) and Michigan State.

In addition to the baselines simulation using preseason Kenpom efficiency margin values to assign each team a certain strength, I ran three additional simulations in order to try to separate the effect of the schedule from the effect of each teams’ strength. In one simulation, I artificially swapped the strength of MSU and Wisconsin. In effect, this simulates the effect of Wisconsin playing MSU’s schedule while MSU plays Wisconsin’s schedule.

In the other two simulations, MSU and Wisconsin are assumed to be equal in strength, either both as good as Wisconsin’s preseason projection or both as good as MSU’s preseason projection. This set of simulations was performed using both the actual schedule as well as the optimized schedule. The results are shown below in Figure 3.


Figure 3: Comparison of Big Ten regular season championship odds relative to several different scenarios

This figure contains a ton of information. The best way to extract information is to make various comparisons between the different scenarios. If we start with the real schedule (left panel) we can see that in the baseline simulation (using the real Kenpom efficiency margin preseason data) Wisconsin has almost exactly a 20-percentage point advantage over Michigan State in the race for the Big Ten title. The is the same data that I presented in Part Two of my series.

If the two teams had schedules with equal difficulty, swapping the schedules should also swap the championship percentages. In the case of the optimized schedule, this is true within one percentage point. But in the actual schedule, there is a significant gap.

In the baseline case Wisconsin’s championship odds (38.5 percent) are notably higher than MSU’s odds if their strengths are swapped (31.9 percent). In effect, this is equivalent to Wisconsin playing MSU’s schedule, and it implies that Wisconsin’s schedule is worth about six and a half percentage points. A similar analysis of MSU’s baseline odds (18.4 percent) to the odds for Wisconsin if they were equally as good as MSU (23.9 percent, the second red bar) gives a five and and half percentage point difference.

A similar story is told by the third and forth sets of bars. In these cases, MSU and Wisconsin have equal Kenpom efficiency margins, but in both cases, the Badgers’ odds are better (by seven percentage points and five and a half percentage points). It should also be noted that in the right panel of Figure 3 (the optimized schedule) if MSU and Wisconsin have the same efficiency margin, they also have almost identical odds.

Looking at the data from another point of view provides insight into how much of an advantage Wisconsin has simply because of the higher preseason efficiency margin. In other words, how much does an advantage in actual (or simulated) team strength impact the title odds?

This value can be estimated by comparing the first two red bars to each other or the first two green bars to each other in either panel. This is simply the difference in odds that each team would have with the same schedule and either their MSU or Wisconsin’s strength. The difference varies between 13.5 and 14.5 percentage points.

All of this data points to one basic fact: Wisconsin’s calculated 20-percentage point preseason advantage in the regular season odds is due to a one-third contribution of a schedule advantage (about 6.5 percentage points) and a two-thirds contribution (about 13.5 percentage points) from Wisconsin’s estimated efficiency margin advantage.

In addition, I feel that Figure 3 makes a fair case that if an “ideal” Big Ten schedule is constructed, this schedule advantage shrinks to zero. That said, I should also point out that in all four comparisons in the right panel of Figure 3, MSU actually has about a one-percentage point advantage over the Badgers, which appears to arise due to a combination of MSU’s very slightly easier schedule in the “ideal” scenario, combined with the slightly larger home court advantage that Kempon assigns to the Breslin Center relative to the Kohl Center.

Sensitivity Analysis

While the results of the analysis above are interesting (at least to people like me...and I assume anyone still reading this) there are still a few questions that remain. This entire analysis hinges on the idea that the preseason efficiency margin data is correct. The season is now several games in and already some teams have moved up or down. I showed above that Wisconsin’s preseason efficiency margin advantage (+1.79 compared to MSU) is worth about 13.5-percentage points. But, what happens when that value changes? How sensitive are the title odds to these numbers?

In order to clarify this, I ran one additional simple set of simulations. In this case, I fixed the efficiencies margins for all Big Ten teams and varied the efficiency margin of Wisconsin from a value of 18.00 (roughly the quality of a bubble team, ranked around No. 30 in Kenpom) all the way to to a value of 30.00 (roughly the quality of the No. 1 ranked team in Kenpom in any given year).

I then calculated both the expected win totals and regular season title odds for Wisconsin using the actual schedule. Those results are shown below in Figure 4. The same data is also shown for MSU (using their fixed, preseason efficiency margin as a reference).


Figure 4: Sensitivity analysis of the role of efficiency margin on expected wins total and regular season title odds, based on the actual 2020 Big Ten schedule

Note that the actual preseason values for each team are shown with the large, solid data point. The data in Figure 4 looks about like one would expect it to look. A bubble team (with an efficiency margin of 18) would be expected to win just over 10 games in conference play and have less than a 10 percent chance to win the Big Ten regular season, while a team ranked No. 1 in Kenpom (with an efficiency margin of 30) would be expected to win close to 16 games and would have over an 80 percent chance to win the Big Ten.

The correlations are not truly linear (especially for the title odds) but I included the linear fit equations in each plot for reference. In both cases, the slopes provide a good rule of thumb for the sensitivity of expected wins and title odds. Specifically, for every 1.00 improvement in efficiency margin, a team’s expected win total will increase by about 0.44 wins and the title odds will improve by about 6.7 percent for a team in a conference like the Big Ten in 2020.

Note that the second number is consistent with Wisconsin’s roughly 13-percentage point schedule-independent advantage mentioned above, considering their almost 2.00 lead in efficiency margin over the second best Big Ten team. Also note that Wisconsin’s schedule advantage is worth almost exactly 1.00 in efficiency margin.

The artificial change in Wisconsin’s strength makes a relatively small impact on MSU’s expected wins and even odds. MSU only faces Wisconsin once, so it makes sense that MSU’s expected win total is almost unaffected. As for the title odds, MSU’s odds decrease gradually as the strength of the Badgers increases. Even in the cases where Wisconsin is really good, MSU’s odds only drop by eight to ten percentage points. Basically, MSU still mows their own grass, more or less.

Finally, this analysis begs the question of the general correlation between expected wins and regular season title odds. That correlation is shown below and was derived for the original baseline simulation of all 14 Big Ten teams combined with the Wisconsin sensitivity analysis discussed above.


Figure 5: Correlation between number of preseason expected wins and the odds to win the Big Ten regular season

Again, this plot makes a lot of sense. If a team’s expected win total is around 10 wins or less, the odds to win the Big Ten are very low (five percent or less). Those odds increase fairly linearly to close to 90 percent as the expected win total approaches 16. Recent history suggests that the regular season Big Ten champs usually win roughly 16 games in a 20-game schedule. Furthermore, the slope of the line suggests that every whole win improvement is worth about 17 percentage points in championship odds.

At this point, I think that it is safe to say that I have beaten the preseason Kenpom data to a bloody pulp. Fortunately, the Big Ten season is right around the corner, and the analytical tools at my disposal will allow for a real time tracking of expected wins, regular season championship odds, and Big Ten tournament seeding and odds.

The first Big Ten game tips off on Sunday, Dec. 13, and I plan to give a brief update on the numbers which reflect the changes that have occurred since the preseason data was released. I will then provide updates following most MSU games. That is all for now. Until next time, enjoy, and Go Green.

U16 Honeybaked about to start at 1:10 taking on Fox Motors, at the Indy Showcase in Ft Wayne. 3 MSU commits on the HB team, Owen Baker, Tucker Shedd, and Justin Varner. Fox Motors includes Dom Elliott also a MSU commit

Unable to play it on Demand on MSU website last 2 weeks. What a cluster. So much better when I was able to stream on Spartan Sports Network. MSU has gone backasswards on their coaches radio show podcasts.

Oh and if you thought the Red Wings were bad before - the division of:

Pittsburgh
Detroit
Columbus
Chicago
St. Louis
Nashville
Florida
Tampa Bay

That should be fun.

Hopefully can reschedule

Not sure of MSU's interest level, but they're evaluating him closely.

It's hard for us to get a feel for the transfer targets for the most part, all we can do is figure out who is being evaluated and then wait for some additional smoke most of the time.

Russo joins McKenzie Milton and D'wan Mathis as the 3 QBs they've looked at closely.

Completed 68% of his passes in his most recent season.

https://247sports.com/college/kentu...die-Gran-Darin-Hinshaw-Mark-Stoops-156144811/

One year after their best season ever. Just putting things in perspective after watching MSU struggle the last few years at that coaching position.

Here's a quick piece on Ma'a's former 5-star brother leaving USC. I don't say anything too revealing in the piece itself, but you guys are smart enough to connect the dots and also reference my past reports on Ma'a.

Plus, if you missed all that, then there's this...

Either way, it's too early to think about where MSU stands with the older brother. Not sure if Mel ever recruited him, let alone built a meaningful relationship with him. However, the connection to Ma'a (plus MSU's needs for LB) were too big to ignore the implications of.


Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media