Huff has decided to back off his pledge to the Spartans.

MORE HERE: https://rvls.co/HuffDecommits

Now that we all know Ward is back, I had some thought and questions about possible rotations for the 2018-19 team. I think that most people are expecting a starting five, at least in the first game of:

Winston
Langford
McQuaid
Goins
Ward

There is a lot of speculation that Bingham might start at the 4 instead of Goins, and that makes sense. As we look at the whole team, the 1, 4, and 5 positions are pretty clear. But, I wonder about the possible rotation at the wing (2 / 3) position. The general problem is that you have 2-3 veterans who are a bit undersized for the 3 perhaps (Lanford, McQuaid, and Ahrens) and several candidates at the 2/3 who are taller, but who are Freshman (Brown, Henry, and maybe Kithier, but he is more likely a 4).

Actually, there seems to be some discrepancy about height... but anyway, from the standpoint of experience on the floor at a given time, I am not sure that it makes sense to start the game with Winston, Langford, and McQuaid all on the court at the same time. It seems to me that it might be better to maybe have McQuaid continue to come off the bench to back up Langford and have either Ahrens or whichever Freshman is up to the task (Brown or Henry) start at the 3. It just seems like this would work better once Izzo starts to go to his bench. Now, at the end of the game, I think having those three in the game is very likely. But, my gut feeling is that more of a staggered approach would work better in a situation like this year when you have 5 Freshman, none of who are one-and-done types.

OK, I really thought that I was done with basketball analysis for the year. But then, I received a comment that really got me thinking. The comment asked the fairly straightforward question as to how would my PAD and/or PARIS metrics (explained in detail in this article) compare to the performance of each coach relative to their Ken Pomroy (KenPom) ranking. My gut feeling was that Kenpom's ranking correlates to the Vegas spread and the Vegas spread correlates to seed differential (as explained in this article) and therefore Kenpom's ratings would correlate to my Performance Against exact seed Differential (PAD) metric. I decided to test this theory.

As luck would have it, I just this year downloaded the set of pre-tournament Kenpom data from 2002 to 2018, which is as much data as is currently available on Kenpom's site. Then, I just had to figure out how to make the mathematical comparison. The first step was to correlate the Kenpom data to the probability of the favored team winning. In general, the best way to do this seems to be to use Kenpom's adjusted efficiency margin. The differential in adjusted efficiency margin between each team in a given contest should correlate to a point spread / probability of victory. So, I took all the data from the 2002-2018 tournaments, placed it into bins, and plotted the correlation to the probability that the team with the higher adjusted efficiency margin actually won. That data is shown here:



In general, the shape of the scattered data points strongly resemble my plot of victory probability versus the Vegas spread (shown in detail here), so I decided to use the same mathematical framework (namely the normal distribution) to generate the best fit line for this data set (shown in the solid line). This essentially gave me a simple formula to calculate the expected probability of victory for the favored team in any given NCAA tournament match-up in the KenPom data era (2002-2018).

With this data in hand, it was then straightforward to calculate a "PAD-like metric." With PAD, a coach's performance against any team could be compared to the average performance of all teams in a given seed pairing. In this new metric, the coach's performance against any team can be compared to the above trend line. For example, for a game in which the adjusted efficiency margin differential is 10, the favored team wins 75% of the time, based on the curve above. In a given game with this differential, if the favored team wins, that coach gets a "score" of 0.25 for doing basically 25% better than average. If the favored team losses, that coach gets a score of -0.75.

When this methodology is applied to all tournament games since 2002, a single cumulative score can be generated for each coach that I will now refer to as their Performance Relative to the Average KenPom adjusted Efficiency Margin differential, or "PRAKEM" (because every metric needs a silly acronym, obviously). Below, I have plotted my PAD metric as a function on this new PRAKEM metric.



As I expected, the correlation between PAD and PRAKEM is very high (R2 ~ 0.92). In addition, there are a couple of other interesting things to observe from this plot. On the positive side, if the data is limited to 2002-2018, Tom Izzo is notably still the coach with the highest PAD score, checking in at just over 6.0, despite the fact that this does not include his 4 straight Sweet 16s, 3 Final Fours, and National Title win from 1998 to 2001. But, based on the PRAKEM metric, Izzo drops to 5th place behind Roy Williams, Boeheim, Beilein, and Calipari. Also notable are the fact that Bo Ryan and Bill Self are flat average relative to KenPom (a PRAKEM of zero), while Coach K has one of the worst PAD and PRAKEM metrics of any active coach since 2002.

As we consider the difference between the PAD and PRAKEM metrics, I believe that we can draw one more conclusion from this data set. KenPom's average efficiency margin, in my opinion, gives about as close as possible to a true measure of the actual prowess of a given team. The PAD, however, is dependent on each team's seed, which itself is dependent on the Committee's judgment of the actual prowess of each team. So, the difference in the PAD and PRAKEM value is really just the difference in each team's real strength vs. their seed. So, I would propose that if a coach's PAD is greater than their PRAKEM (i.e. they are above the best fit line above) this suggests that the committee seeded their teams, on average, too low. Conversely, if their PRAKEM value is higher than their PAD value, the committee probably seeded them, on average, too high.

If we accept this to be true, we can then take the difference between the PAD and PRAKEM as a quantitative measure how much a coach has been under-seeded or over-seeded in their career. A histogram showing this data for all coaches since 2002 is shown below:



As one might expect, this distribution is rather Gaussian / Normal in shape and once again it is the outliers that are interesting. Based on this measure, Tom Izzo is the most under-seeded coach in the past 16 years, followed closely by Gregg Marshall, Mark Few, and Bo Ryan, with Rick Pitino and Billy Donovan also in the under-seeded category. As for the over-seeded coached, that would include John Beilein, Sean Miller, Lute Olson, Jim Calhoun, Roy Williams, Jimmy Boeheim, and Bill Self in a distant last in that category.

That is all that I have for now, so unless someone else asks a super interesting question that results in me diving back down into the math rabbit hole, it is time to start thinking about football. Until then, enjoy!

As I close out this final installment of my 2018 NCAA Tournament postmortem analysis, I wanted to return to some of the metrics that I developed to quantify each coach's performance in the NCAA tournament, which are explained in more detail in my previous post, found here. The first metric "PARIS" essentially calculates the number of games above or below average a coach is for a given seed playing in a given round. For example, Tom Izzo is 3-0 as a 5-seed in Round 2, but all 5-seeds in history are 55-55 (50%) in Round 2, which means Izzo had won 1.5 more games than average (50% times 3) as a 5-seed in 2nd round games. Performing the same mathematical operation on all 68 on Tom Izzo's NCAA games results in a PARIS of 8.09.

The second metric of interest is the "PAD" which is similar to PARIS, except that it instead considers each coach's performance relative to their seed and the seed of their opponent in each game, independent of round. The reason that I developed the PAD metric was due to the fact that not all NCAA tournament paths are created equally. For example, of Tom Izzo's 3 games as a 5-seed in Round 2, two of those games were against 4-seeds (where the 5-seed historically wins 44% of the time), but one of those games was against the 13-seed (which a 5-seed will historically beat 82%) of time. Izzo's performance against those exact seeds is actually only 1.3 games better than average. Because of this more exact treatment of each exact seed combination in all games, I consider the PAD rating to be the most accurate way to measure a coach's tournament performance against expectation. But, I think that it can tell us a little more than that.

In this case, Izzo's PAD score is slightly lower than his PARIS score because he was fortunate enough to draw the lower seed in 1 of 3 tries, which is slightly higher than the odds that a 13-seed upsets a 4-seed (which is 1 in 5). Had Izzo gone 3-0 in Round 2 all against 4-seeds, this would have been slightly unlucky relative to average, and Izzo's PAD would have been 1.69. What this simple 3-game example demonstrates is that the mathematical difference between the PARIS and PAD score is a quantitative measure of how lucky a coach's draw is in the NCAA tournament, whether they win or lose a given game. So, I decided to calculate and plot this "luck differential" (PARIS minus PAD) for all coaches in the modern (1979-now) era. The graph below shows the result of this raw calculation for all coaches with more than 10 tournament games played.



As one might expect, the majority (>85%) of coaches fall into the middle of this chart. Some notable coaches have been a little bit lucky (Izzo, Few, Dean Smith, Pitino, Knight, and Calipari), and others have been a little unlucky (Sean Miller, Matta, Dixon, Painter, and Jay Wright). But, the interesting parts of this chart are the extreme ends. Based on this analysis, the luckiest tournament coaches in history include Bill Self, Tubby Smith, Bob Huggins, Jim Calhoun, Jim Boeheim, John Beilein, Coach K, and Billy Donovan. In contrast, at the other extreme of the chart include the most unlucky coaches in history including Gary and Roy Williams, Lute Olson, and Rollie Massimino.

The data for Billy Donovan is clearly the biggest outlier on the entire chart. But, a glance at his tournament opponents over the years helps to explain this value. Donovan has advanced to the 2nd round 11 times, and 5 of those times he has faced 11-seeds or worse. He has advanced to the Sweet 16 eight times and faced a team seeded 7 or worse three times (including the only 15-seed ever to make the Sweet 16). In his 7 Regional Final appearances, he has faced a 1-seed, two 3-seeds, two 4-seeds, an 8-seed and an 11-seed. In his four National Semifinal games, he has faced a 2-seed, 7-seed, 8-seed, and an 11-seed. Donovan has only faced a 1- or 2-seed a total of 6 times in his entire career, which is by far the lowest of any coach in the Top 20 of tournament wins in the modern era. The average for Top 10 coaches is over 17 and the average is over 10 for the coaches in spots 11-20 of total wins. Tom Izzo has faced 19 1- and 2-seeds. So, in other words, Donovan's luck score makes sense.

Now, this is not to say that all of Donovan's success in March is due to luck. He still made it to four Final Fours and won two titles. He is a very good to elite coach. But, at the same time, the math doesn't lie. It is possible to be both lucky and good at the same time. Billy the Kid is both.

A slightly different way to attempt to normalize this data a bit is to scale the luck score by the number of games each score has played past the first round of the tournament (where the PAD and PARIS are essentially equal). This gives a bit more information about the intensity of the luck each coach has experienced and that distribution is shown below.



In this case, the tails of the distribution are now dominated by coaches with few Tournament attempts (such as former Virginia coach Pete Gillen, who only coached in eight total games past the first round, three of which were against 10 seeds or worse). Some coaches such as Coach K and Roy Williams are now closer to zero, but coaches like Billy Donovan, John Beilein, and Bo Ryan are all still very much in the lucky category.

Finally, speaking of John Beilein, there was a lot of talk in the 2018 Tournament of Michigan's seemingly very easy run all the way to the Title game. So, an obvious question is how does this path compare to other paths teams have taken to reach the Final Four or win the Title? There are several ways to look at this. One metric is simply to use the Luck Differential (PARIS-PAD) metric summarized above, although a relatively lucky draw and an easy draw are slightly different concepts. Another would be to add together the sum of the seeds of all opponents that each teams faces on their particular tournament path. The problem is that, by design, the higher a team's seed, the easier their path is supposed to be. For example, a 1-seeds ideal "seed sum" to reach the Four Final is 16+8+4+2= 30, while for a 5-seed this sum is 12+4+1+2=19. So, a potentially more fair method is to calculate the deviation from this ideal "chalk" seed sum that a given team actually faced. For example, in 2001, 1-seeded MSU faced a 16-9-12-11 seed on the way to the Final Four. This is a "seed sum" of 48, which is 18 seeds higher than the 1-seed chalk value. Finally, I thought that it would also be instructive to show the best seed that each team defeated on their journey. So, I decided to tabulate all four metrics, sorted by the seed differential, for all teams that have made the Final Four, Championship Game and won the Title. I will start with teams' path to the Final Four (where the metrics were calculated only up to that point).



For the paths to the Final Four, shown above, I only included roughly the top 10% and bottom top 10%, as there have now been 160 total Final Four participants. While each metric tells a slightly different story, there are clearly a set of Final Four runs that were soft based on all four metrics. Based on seed differential, Nolan Richardson's 1990 Arkansas squad is in 1st place, which makes a lot of sense considering they faced a 13-, 12-, 8-, and 10-seed on the way to the Final Four. Syracuse's' 2016 path (7, 15, 11, 1) is in the Top 4, as is Kansas's 1988 run (11, 14, 7, 4), and MSU's 2011 run (16, 9, 12, 11). The aforementioned Michigan 2018 path (14, 6, 7, 9) is tied for 12th place. As for the toughest paths, those are naturally the 26 teams who played the toughest possible teams in the first four rounds and thus had a seed differential of zero.



In the case of the path to the Finals (the top and bottom 25% of which are tabulated above) the rankings change a bit. In first place here is the 2018 Michigan squad, which has the distinction of being the only team to reach the Finals without at least beatings a 5-seed. Tied for 2nd is UNLV in 1990 (16, 8, 12, 11, 4), Kansas's aforementioned 1988 team, and Florida's 2006 squad (14, 11, 7, 1, 11). I would also highlight the 1986 Louisville team (15, 7, 3, 8, 11) who scored a particularly high luck value, and the 2005 UNC squad (16, 9, 5, 6, 5) who never faced a team seeded better than 5 until meeting 1-seed Illinois in the Final. The bottom, unlucky, half of the table shows that five teams in history have taken the hardest possible path to the Finals (seed differential =0), and roughly 25% of all Finalists have a seed differential of 3 or lower, including MSU's 2009 team.



Finally, the table above shows the full path for all 40 NCAA Champions in the modern era. The undisputed champion of the easy path goes to the 1990 UNLV team whose best win of the tournament was over 3-seed Duke in the Finals. Kansas's 1988 team, Florida's 2006 squad, and the 1986 Louisville team all remain in Top 5 as well. The only relative surprise in this table is the 2013 Louisville team (16, 8, 12, 2, 9, 4) whose score was aided by a surprisingly weak set of opponents in the Final Four. At the bottom of the table we see that no team have ever won the title by taking the hardest possible path, but Jay Wright came close in 2016, as did Dean Smith in 1993 with UNC. However, the closest in reality was the 2015 Wisconsin team who would have accomplished this feat had they beat 1-seed Duke. No other team has entered the Finals with this opportunity.

Well, that just about does it for 2018. I hope that everyone enjoyed this 5-part series of mine. Thanks for reading, and until next time, enjoy!

In last week's post about coaching success in March, I primarily focused on the concept of performance vs. expectation. While I certainly feel that this is an important metric, at the end of the day, what really matters is winning games, advancing in the tournament, and cutting down nets. With this is mind, I thought that it would be fair to take a look at a few other measures of coaching success in March. Specifically, I wanted to look at overall winning percentage as well as the winning percentages as the favorite and as the underdog. In addition, I also wanted to take a look at the number of appearances per round. Perhaps more interestingly, I finally wanted to analyze the rate (appearances per attempt) of each coach advancing to a particular round. In order to keep the data set a bit more manageable, I will just report the data for active coaches with 10 tournament wins or more and all coaches with 20 tournament wins or more in the post-1979 era. The table with all this data summarized is shown below:



As a first pass, I sorted the table based on overall winning percentages, and the current standing are not much of a surprise. Coach K and Roy Williams (with their 8 titles between them) currently sit 1-2 in the rankings. Calipari, Billy Donovan, Dean Smith, and Pitino are not far behind. They all have winning percentages above 74%. That is notable because in any given tournament, if you win 75% of your games, you have at least advanced to the Regional Final. In effect, these coaches all average making it to the Regional Final, which is consistent with the fact that all 6 of these elite coaches make it to the Regional Final between 44% and 58% of the time.

In the next batch of coaches in the table, you find Jim Calhoun, Bill Self, Tom Izzo, and Jerry Tarkanian, all of which having winning percentages above 70%, just below that Elite 8 average performance. Slightly below that are the likes of Denny Crum, Jay Wright, John Beilein, Frank Martin, John Thompson, and Jim Boeheim, all who clock in at a winning percentage of around 66.7% or better. The 66.7% mark is notable, as this marks the line where a coach averages a Sweet 16 bid. As for the other 29 coaches in the table, they lie below this threshold.

After the overall winning percentage, I think that it is interesting to look at two additional metrics: each coach's winning percentage both as a favorite and as an underdog. That data is also shown in the table above. From the table, it is clear that the majority of the elite level coaches all win between 80 and 90% of their games when they are favored. Roy Williams, Pitino, Calhoun, Calipari, Tom Izzo (ranked 8th), Coach K, and Jay Wright all fall into this category. Interestingly, the top ranked coach in the table based on this metric is John Beilein. His current record as a favored seed of 17-2 (89.5%) is only behind Massmino (7-0), Brad Stevens (7-0), and P.J. Carlisimo (9-1) for all coaches with more than 4 games as a favorite. For as much as I like to poke fun at our friends from Ann Arbor, Beilein’s record as a favorite is truly remarkable. His only loses were to Ohio in 2012 in the 4-13 match-up and 8-seed Kentucky in the 2014 Regional Final, and clearly there is no shame in that. He basically never loses as the favorite.

The compliment to the coach’s record as a favorite is their record as an underdog. In the table above, there are only 3 coaches with winning records as the underdog. Billy Donovan and Leonard Hamilton are both 6-3 (66.7%) as underdogs, but the sample size of nine games is relatively small. In third place is Tom Izzo will a stunning 14-13 (52%) record as the underdog, and he still holds the record for the most wins as the lower seed in tournament history (14). Jim Beoheim is only one win behind with 13, but is overall sub 500 at 13-15 (46.4%). No other active coach has more than 7 wins as an underdog (Beilein, Few, and Gregg Marshall), and only Lute Olson (11) and Rollie Massimino (11) have more than 10 total in history.

That all said, the real measure of a coach'e prowess in March, one could and perhaps should argue, is advancement in the tournament itself. As such, the final block of data in the table above shows first the total number of appearances in a given round for each coach, with the rate of appearance shown in parenthesis. For example, Coach K has advanced to 24 Sweet 16s in his 34 tournament appearances (24/34 = 71%). In order to aid in the visualization of this data, I prepared a set of histograms for appearance rate data for each round. As an added bonus, I also made a histogram for the number of times a coach gets upset in the first round, which is more interesting than simply the rate of making it to the 2nd round. Those histograms are shown below.



In the case of the 1st round upset frequency, essentially all of the modern elite coaches get upset less than 20% of the time, and some (Roy Williams, Jay Wright, and Brad Stevens) have actually never been upset in the 1st round. Not surprisingly, some of the coaches with a bit of a reputation for choking in March (Sean Miller, Lute Olson, Gene Keady, and Rick Barnes) are all found to lose at a clip greater than 20%. Perhaps the most surprising number are Bob Knights 39% clip in the modern era and Kevin Stallings shocking 50% rate. Tom's Izzo' rate of 18% (3/17) first round upsets is slightly high relative to some other coaches, but is in the most common bin in the histogram.



As for the Sweet 16 appearance frequency, the distribution is a bit more bell-curve shaped. Dean Smith is the champion of this specific analysis, having made 15 Sweet Sixteen in 19 attempts in the modern era (79%). Not far behind are Coach K and John Calipari, who are both over 70%. Tom Izzo's rate of 62% is good enough for 6th place among active coaches, although interestingly Sean Miller's rate (64%) is slightly higher.



Regarding the Regional Final round, here John Calpari and Rick Pitino set the pace at 58% and 57%, respectively, while Bill Self and Billy Donovan are close behind at 50%. If nothing else, this is an indication of the overall success that all four of those coaches have in the Round of 16. In contrast, Jim Boeheim's rate drops to a mere 23% in this round due to his historically poor performance in the Sweet 16. Tom Izzo's rate of 43% is certainly very strong and is in fact good enough for 5th place among active coaches.



As for the Final Four, Larry Brown's 3 Final Fours in only 8 tournaments leads the pack at 37.5%, but Coach K (35%), Izzo (33%), Pitino (33%), Roy Williams (32%), and John Calipari (32%) are all right there at the top of the list, and they all have coached in at least twice as many tournaments. The mere fact that all five of those elite coaches have such similar statistics is notable itself. Most other Final Four coaches are lucky to reach a Final Four 20% of the time, so this is a clear demarcation of the truly elite.



At the end of the day, the only prize that really matters is the National Title, and by this metric the truly elite coaches are Coach K, Billy Donovan, Jay Wright, and Jim Calhoun, all of whom have multiple titles and all of whom have won a title in 13-14% of their tournament appearances. In the batch after that are coaches who win titles 9-11% of the time, including Denny Crum, Roy Williams, and Rick Pitino. Tom Izzo is back in the pack who have won the title in 4-6% of their tournament appearances, including Bill Self, Calipari, Lute Olson, and Jim Boeheim. But, as we all know, winning the whole thing is tough, and this chart is by far the one that is influenced more by individual plays. For example, if one were to eliminate the Villanova buzzer beater in the 2016 title game, Jay Wright and Roy Williams would essentially trade spaces on this chart. So, maybe it is enough just to be on this chart in the first place. That seems fair to me.

Back in 2015, I went down a bit of a math rabbit hole based on a curiosity of mine. I wondered if it was possible to quantify the performance of coaches and teams in the NCAA tournament in ways other than simply wins and losses, Final Fours, and National Titles. In particular, I wanted to quantify under and overachieving in March. Along the way, I developed a few metrics that compared each coaches' and team's performance to the average performance of all other coaches / teams in similar tournament situations.

Somewhere along the way, I discovered that others had also formulated a similar metric called "PASE" (Performance Against Seed Expectation). My metrics were mathematically a bit different, and I settled onto two, one that I call PARIS (Performance Against Round Independent Seed) and PAD (Performance Against exact seed Differential). Last year, I gave a pretty detailed mathematical description of each metric and summarized notable coaches performance based on these metrics. That analysis can be found here. For my purposes today, I simply want to provide an update to the numbers following the 2018 Tournament.

For those that are not so interested in mathematical underpinnings of the PASE, PARIS, and PAD metric, the basic idea is as follows. PASE considers the averages games won by a specific coach per tournament relative to the average number of games won per tournament by all teams of that seed in tournament history. My PARIS metric essentially does the same thing, only it considers each game independently on all other games. The PAD metric uses a similar formula, but it instead considers each team's performance relative to the specific seed of the opponent in each game, as opposed to just the performance per round. The PAD metric essentially corrects for the fact that some teams benefit from easy draws, such as getting to play a 14-seed, 6-seed, 7-seed, 9-seed, and an 11-seed on the way to the Title Game, as opposed to a 14-seed, 6-seed, 2-seed, 1-seed, and another 1-seed, just to throw out a completely random scenario.

So, without further delay, here is a set of histograms that summarize notable coaches' cumulative PASE, PARIS, and PAD metrics, following the 2018 Tournament:





As you can see, the New Master of March, despite failing to make the Sweet 16 for the past 3 years, is still none other than Tom Izzo (AKA, the Old Master of March). He currently sits atop of the leader-board of all 623 coaches to have coached a game in the NCAA Tournament since 1979 with a PASE of 13.54, a PARIS of 8.09, and a PAD of 7.57. The histograms also give you a fairly good feel for the "good" tournament coaches (Tom Izzo, Roy Williams, Coach K, John Calipari, John Beilein, Billy Donovan, and Jim Calhoun), the average ones (Sean Miller, Bo Ryan, Mark Few, Thad Matta, and Lute Olson), and the ones that struggle (Tony Bennett, Gene Keady, and Rick Barnes).

Just to put Izzo's current stats in some perspective, only 3 other coaches at the peak of their PASE rating have ever surpassed this number. Coach K had a PASE of 16.00 after the 2001 National Title, but has dropped to 10.18 since (despite racking up 2 additional titles). Louisville legend Denny Crum achieved a PASE of 14.53 in 1997 before retiring with a value of 12.68. Rick Pitino maxed his PASE out at 13.78 in 2015 before getting upset by Michigan last year to drop to 12.43.

That said, Izzo's peak (so far) occurred after the 2015 Final Four run at a value of 16.31, a value which is the highest ever achieved by any coach. If MSU would have merely met expectations in 2016 and 2018, Izzo's PASE would be an astounding 17.54, a full game and a half ahead of all other coaches in history. So, while MSU's performance over the past few years has been a bit disappointing, it may just be evidence that Tom Izzo is merely mortal. A little bit a bad luck (such as MTSU shooting the lights out and MSU not shooting the lights out against Syracuse) might just have been due.

One thing that is also clear from the histograms that I am sure all MSU fans noticed is that John Beilein has been rapidly ascending over the past few years. Following 2012, Beilein's PASE was only at 2.67. Just 6 years later, Beilein's PASE has sky-rocketed to 10.38, which is good enough for 3rd among active coaches (ahead of Coach K and behind Calipari). Based on my PARIS metric, Beilein is actually in 2nd place behind only Izzo. This is truly impressive. But, that all being said, I will comment that if Kansas (in 2013) and Houston (in 2018) players simply make free throws OR if Michigan players don't make 30-ft jump shots in both games, Beilein's PASE would be only 3.38. So, it is fair to question if he can maintain such a rapid "pase" of improvement.

For those that are interested in the raw numbers, I will leave you with a table of the three metrics (sorted by PAD) of all active coaches with at least 10 tournament games and all coaches in history with at least 20 games played in the "modern era" (since 1979 when seeded began). Enjoy!

All active coaches with 10+ games



All Coaches with 20+ games:

A quick commentary and appreciation for an under-appreciated Spartan:

DotComp: Allen Deserves To Shoulder This Moment



Jim Comparoni • SpartanMag.com
@JimComparoni

The streak means something to Michigan State football, and it’s fans. And it should.

And now Brian Allen gets a place in Michigan State history that he deserves.

Allen - the rugged, durable, reliable, likable, humble Spartan center - was selected in the fourth round by the Los Angeles Rams in the NFL Draft on Saturday.

With Allen’s selection, Michigan State is one of just five schools to have had at least one player chosen every year since the inception of the common NFL Draft in 1967. At least one Spartan has been selected in the NFL Draft since 1941, the third-longest streak in the FBS (78 straight).

That streak was in severe jeopardy this year. The Spartans had only three senior starters on last year’s team, which went 10-3 and won the Holiday Bowl. Losing few players to graduation will make Michigan State a preseason power for 2018. But it also meant MSU’s pool of potential NFL Draft picks was extremely limited for this weekend’s draft.

MSU’s chances of maintaining its elite streak of consecutive years with an NFL Draft pick came down to Allen. And he came through, providing a great, appropriate post script to his terrific career at Michigan State.

After the Holiday Bowl victory over Washington State in San Diego in late December, in the hallway outside the locker room, following Allen’s final post-game interview as a college player, I turned off my camera and microphone, shook his hand, and congratulated him. I congratulated him not only for a fine senior season, and a bowl victory, but I congratulated him for being a central figure in rescuing the program from the 3-9 season of 2016 and the turmoil that went with it. I congratulated him for doing more than his part to halt the negative momentum, repair the locker room, repair the team and repair the program.

“Thank you,” he said with a quiet strength.

Allen is not a finger-waver or camera-seeker. He didn’t make his contributions to the team in order to get a trophy or public praise. He did what he did because he cared, and he felt an obligation.

His older brother, Jack Allen, an All-American and Rose Bowl hero, was a natural leader. Brian was a good college player, but not a natural leader like his brother. Not at first.

Jack redshirted as a freshman, and was able to come along steadily and slowly.

Brian was more athletic than Jack, and played as a true freshman. Brian’s college career went by quicker, in four years rather than five. Coaches pushed him to become a leader because, well, he was an Allen, and, well, the Spartans needed a leader on the offensive line, probably sooner than Brian was able to deliver. Brian tried to fit that role as a junior in 2016. But the program was wrought with problems and internal squabbling, too many for a third-year junior offensive lineman to combat by himself.

Then in 2017 when Mark Dantonio challenged his team to “flip it,” and turn the 3-9 record of 2016 upside down, the Spartans needed a large dose of senior leadership. But there were only two senior returning starters. A mammoth level of responsibility fell on Allen’s shoulders.

The reluctant leader buckled his chinstrap and did what needed to be done. At every turn, he tried to be stone-faced pathfinder on offense, and support the vocal leadership of Chris Frey on defense. A lot of bad apples left the program. Many new, young ones were on the rise. Allen saw potential in them, and recognized the chance, and necessity, to take the torch.

Allen and Frey were named team captains in August. Three months later, they helped represent one of the best turn-arounds in college football.

Other names emerged as Spartan stars in the 2017 season, including Brian Lewerke, Felton Davis, Cody White, Darrell Stewart, Kenny Willekes, Joe Bachie. But their successes, the 10 wins, and perhaps the beginning of a new bowl streak, existed, and rotated and revolved on Allen’s shoulders, like MSU’s Atlas.

Allen became the type of worker and giver that teammates would listen to and rally around. The program meant something to him. He gave back. He was like a support beam for Spartan football.

And then came the 2018 NFL Draft, with Allen as the only hope to preserve the streak.

It wasn’t up to him to come through and deliver. His work was done. It was up to an NFL general manager to understand his value.

Shortly after noon Eastern time on Saturday, Les Snead of the Los Angeles Rams became that general manager when his team made Allen the No. 111 player selected in the draft. Allen was at his parents’ suburban Chicagoland home in Hinsdale, Ill. It was 11 a.m., their time. They had just built a fire. The Allens are wrestlers. They’re carnivores. They’re Midwesterners. City of Broad Shoulders? Yep.

“You want to be an L.A. Ram?” Snead asked Brian over the phone.

“Hell yeah,” Allen said.

Done deal.

Some of us thought Allen might not go until the sixth or seventh round, if at all. Jack went through the same hopes, expectations and then disappointment in the spring of 2016. Jack went undrafted, and had to make it in the NFL as a free agent.

Brian remembers that day and tried to prepare himself for the same type of disappointment on Saturday. But he had a feeling in the back of his head that the Rams - based on his interviews with their scouts and coaches - really liked him.

Perhaps Jack’s ability to stick in the NFL with the New Orleans Saints helped Brian’s stock. Perhaps the Rams had an understanding of the immense role Brian played for Michigan State inside the lines and outside the lines. Heart and commitment? The vague intangibles that NFL executives covet but have trouble measuring? Allen is an ace in those areas.

His film is good, his technique is good, his DNA is proven. The rest of it? He can shoulder it.

He was asked about MSU’s streak in recent weeks and months. He said he would like to be the person who continued it, but he knew there wasn’t much he could do about it. There was no reason for the streak to add to his pre-draft anxiety level.

But Brian Allen became the one whose work, personality and accomplishments continued the streak. He deserves the spotlight and maybe even popping of Champagne corks in his name.

He almost anonymously, selflessly had so much to do with resurrecting Spartan football last year. As an important footnote in Spartan lore, he deserved this day, all to himself.

The 2018 NCAA Men's basketball tournament had some pretty special moments. From the controversial quad system to a 16-seed beating a 1-seed to an 11-seed making the Final Four to crazy finishes, it was a pretty a fun 3 weeks (except for MSU fans. It honestly kind of sucked for us). But, was it really such a strange tournament? I mean, they call it "March Madness" for a reason, right? Well, as we will see, it was really not that strange at all, at the end of the day.

As for the total number of upsets (by seed only) the 2018 Tournament produced a total of 20 upsets in 67 games. The average number of upsets per year back to the 64 team expansion in 1985 is 17.6 ± 3. But, as you can see from the histogram below, there is a fair amount of scatter in the data with a minimum value of 12 and a maximum of 23. While 20 is a bit high based on the average, it is actual the mode (most frequently appearing value) of the distribution.

If we instead look at the upset distribution on a per round basis, we again see that the number of upsets in a given round in 2018 were pretty normal. 9 first round upsets is again the mode and very close to the average (8.1). Similarly, the six 2nd round upsets is pretty normal. It is really only the four upsets in the Sweet 16 round that is a bit high.



As for the late rounds, there was only one true seed upset observed from the regional final round forward (11-Loyola over 9-Kansas State), which is below the historical average of 2.5 for the last 3 rounds.

But, all this analysis got me thinking; not all upsets are created equally. Some upsets (like 16-UMBC's upset of 1-Virginia) are historic, while others (such as 9-Alabama over 8-VA Tech) are very pedestrian. So, I considered the question of how to define a "big upset." On obvious metric to use is the difference between the seeds of the two teams involved in the upset. The bigger this differential, the bigger the upset. But, this would also seem to be a bit round-dependent.

In the first round, for example, a 8-seed, 7-seeds, and 6-seed, all get upset fairly frequently (over 35% of the time). The 5-12 upset is also fairly common (32% of the time). But, the 4-13 upset is noticeably less common (only 20% of the time) as are upsets of 3-, 2-, or 1-seeds. So, for 1st round games, I set the seed differential cut-off for a "big upset" at 8.

In the second round, in theory there should not be too many seeds large enough around to cause a "big upset" if the seed differential cut-off remains at 8. But, if we think about the typical seed match-ups, a fairly clear rule of thumb appears: reduce the cut-off to 4. In my view a 8/9 seed beating a 1-seed in the second round is a big upset, as is a 7/10 seed beating a 2-seed. However a 6-seed over a 3-seed is not a huge upset, but an 11-seed over a 3-seed is (not that we have any experience with that...)

Once you get to the Sweet 16 and beyond, I propose to tighten the criteria to a seed differential of 3. My feeling is that a 4/5 beating a 1 seed is still a big deal. If a 3-seed beats a 2-seed, that is fairly common, but a 6-seed over a 2-seed is notable. Interestingly, as I consult my table / graph of upset probabilities by round (see here), all of the upsets listed above that I consider to be "big" happen only 30% of the time or less. In effect, this is the cut-off that I have selected.

With this all in mind, and using these criteria, I calculated the number of big upsets per year and found that 2018 was on the high side with 11 total, tied for 2nd all time. The histogram is shown below, along with the histogram for the final 3 rounds of the tournament.



Upsets aside, the fact a 3-seed and an 11-seed both made the Final Four is pretty rare, right? Well, not exactly. While an 11-seed is the lowest seed ever to make the Final Four, it hs happened three times before (LSU in 1986, George Mason in 2006, and VCU in 2011). Furthermore, if you average the seed value of the highest, 2nd highest, 3rd highest, and lowest seed in each Final Four, you get 1.1, 1.7, 3.0, and 5.7. The actual distributions are shown below:



So, having at least two 1-seeds happens 54% of the time. Having a 3-seed or lower as the 3rd highest seen happens 44% of the time, so that is also not that strange. As for the lowest seed, it is a 5-seed or lower 56% the time, and an 8-seed or lower has appeared in the Final Four 6 times in the past 8 years. Loyola's run to the Final Four was amazing, but it was not that far from the norm.

If you are looking for a final bit of trivia about the strangeness of the 2018 Tournament, I will leave you with this: it was a great year to be a 9-seed. 9-seeds are typically terrible once / if they make it out of the first round. 9-seeds are 9-67 (11.8%) in 2nd round games, which is abysmal. 8-seeds, in contrast, are 16-68 (19%) which is not awesome, but is almost twice as good. That, in itself, is weird, considering 8/9 games are toss ups. Until this year, only four other 9-seeds had every made it to the Regional Final round. Kansas State and Florida State pushed that number to 6 this year.

Also of note, it was good year to be a 5-seed. For only the 4th time in history, three 5-seeds advanced to the Sweet 16. Come to think of it, the Final Four was two 1-seeds, a 3-seed, and an 11-seed, two 7-seeds made the Sweet 16. So, despite the fact that the majority of the data suggest the 2018 tournament was fairly normal, I suppose it was a bit "odd."

It has been almost three weeks since Villanova cut down the nets in San Antonio, and with that, three weeks since the beginning of great annual 5 month gap between meaningful college sports. While we patiently pass the time this summer until the real fun begins again this fall, I thought that I would reflect back on the NCAA basketball tournament with a series of my math-infused musings. Today's topic: why did it take 34 years and 136 attempts before a 1-seed finally lost to a 16-seed while a 2-seed has fallen on average about once every 4 years? The answer, as it turns out, is the same answer that I often find when I decide to dig deep into some of these topics: because, math.

My journey to solve this mystery began a few years ago when I made the observation that the probability of an upset in the NCAA tournament occurring scales roughly linearly with the difference in value between the two seeds. The correlation is quite strong for the most common seed pairs (i.e. those found in first round games), but it also holds loosely for all seed combinations. This correlation is shown here: (where the size of each marker is scaled to the relative frequency of that pairing occurring in past tournaments.)



Although this plot is a pretty good rule of thumb, it did slightly trouble me that there really is no clear reason for the correlation to be as linear as it is. A hint to understand this all came earlier this year, when a quite different sports math question was rattling around in my brain: what is the correlation between the Vegas spread of a given basketball game and the probability of an upset? Fortunately, I was able to use properties of the normal distribution to answer this question, which I summarized in a bit more detail here.

Earlier this year, it occurred to me to try to compare the probability of an upset based on the spread to the probability of an upset based on the seed differential. It was a bit tricky to find good historical data on NCAA tournament lines, but I did find one website that has enough data to look at the numbers. When I plotted the seed differential against the spread, the data looks like this:



Once again, the data is a bit scattered, but there is a decent linear correlation. Where the correlation gets even stronger is when you consider the probability of an upset derived from the average spread for a particular seed combination to the actual upset rate for that combination in tournament play. That correlation is shown here (where the probability of the favorite team winning are plotted as opposed to the upset rate)



Similar to the other plots shown above, most of the data fall on or near the central line, with a few notable exceptions. Namely, 1-seeds have an oddly good record against 9-seeds, while 2-seed have a surprisingly hard time with 10-seeds.

But, I was still a bit troubled by the fairly thin nature of the spread data that I could find. The website I found listed only the 30 most recent incidents of a given seed pair. That works fine for the 2 vs. 6 match-up, but is a bit sparse for the 5 vs. 12 match-up. However, my previous study of the Vegas spread also suggested that the average margin of victory in a given match-up is actually very highly correlated to the final Vegas spread. That data for over 45,000 college games is shown here:



With this in mind, I was able to predict the average spread of each seed combination using the data for all games back to 1979 when seeding began. Using this "spread" to calculate the upset rate (as opposed to the actual spread) results in this plot, which does have a better R2 compared to the sparse spread data.



With this all in mind, it is time to come back to the original question: why do 2-seeds get upset so much more often than 1-seeds do. The answer is: because games in the NCAA tournament behave in exactly the same way that they do in the regular season when considering upsets as a function of the Vegas line.

When it comes to the 2 vs. 15 match-up, both the spread data that I could find and the average margin of victory data suggest 2-seeds are, on average 16.5 point favorites over 15-seeds. This corresponds to a 93.8% chance that the 2-seed advances. Based on this probability, one would expect a total of 8.5 upsets in the 136 times this match-up has occurred. In reality, there have been 8 since the 64 team tournament expansion in 1985. Score one for math.

As for 1-seeds, it is slightly less clear, as the sparse actual spread data that I found suggests 1-seeds are favored an average by 22.3 points, while the margin of victory data suggests the spread should be a bit higher at 24.5 points. Taken together, this suggests that a 16-seed has between a 1.8% and 1.1% chance of an upset. Over 34 years and 136 attempts, we should have observed between 1.5 and 2.5 16-seed over 1-seed upsets. We, of course, have only observed one: this year's UMBC upset over the University of Virginia. Those probabilities suggest that a 16 over 1 upset should be observed somewhere between once every 14 years and once every 23 years. In other words, we were a bit over due before this year. That said, it is likely that it will be at least another decade (or 2 or maybe even 3) until we can experience a UMBC-sized upset again in March. But, the next 15 over 2-seed upset is basically due any year now. After all, it's just math.

Dantonio was available for about seven minutes during the annual Big Ten Spring Football Teleconference on Wednesday.

Not a lot of time for a lot of questions, but he brought us up to date on a few things since the Green-White Game:

Football Notebook: Dantonio says Spartans finished strong



Jim Comparoni • SpartanMag.com
@JimComparoni

EAST LANSING - Three days after putting a public cap on Spring Football 2018 for the Michigan State football program, the Spartans were back behind closed doors for their 15th and final practice of the spring. And the Spartans didn’t go light.

Head coach Mark Dantonio, speaking during Wednesday’s annual Big Ten Spring Football Teleconference, felt Tuesday’s practice was a good bookend to what we saw in Spartan Stadium on Saturday.

“I thought that we finished strong,” Dantonio said. “That’s what I always want to try and do, and that’s finish going forward and moving up the ladder and I think we did that.”

Michigan State - which returns all but three starters from last year’s team that went 10-3, won the Holiday Bowl and finished ranked No. 15 - is expected to be a strong contender in the Big Ten East in 2018. And Dantonio feels the Spartans put a good punctuation mark toward that end on Tuesday.

“We had a great practice (Tuesday),” Dantonio said. “The message and our focus was to complete our circle in that capacity; in other words: finish. And I thought our players did that. We had a lot of enthusiasm.”

They showed it on both sides of Shaw Lane, surging through the initial periods of practice on the grass and Field Turf fields of the Skandalaris Center and then clippitty-clopping across the street in their cleats to finish on the big field.

“We went to the stadium for a short time toward the end of practice,” Dantonio said. “It was upbeat, a lot of people flying around, did a lot of things. It was a two-hour-plus practice. We got a lot done.”

Dantonio experimented with an extra practice after the Green-White Game last year, and loved the results.

“We made the spring game more of a scrimmage-type situation, so there's more value I think there for our players,” Dantonio said. “We have a chance to evaluate the spring game. We get to clean it up rather than just say, `Okay, spring ball is done and let's go on our way.’”

He welcomed the chance to continue with meetings and film study heading into Tuesday’s final practice.

“I think that's a positive for the learning environment for our players,” he said. “I was very impressed with the chemistry of our football team and the overall disposition as we went out on the field.”

GOOD GRADES FOR MATT ALLEN



Matt Allen, 64, and Luke Campbell, 62, celebrate Rocky Lombardi's 2-point conversion reception during Saturday's Green-White Game. On Wednesday, Mark Dantonio said Allen will head into the summer as the No. 1 center.


Matt Allen played the entire day on Saturday as the first-string center. Throughout the spring, he shared first-string reps with other linemen vying for the right to succeed the graduated Brian Allen. But baby brother Matt held the fort on Saturday, and looked pretty good on film.

“I thought he played well in the game,” Dantonio said. “I don’t think he had any bad snaps and also I thought he was pretty firm.”

He was flagged for one illegal snap penalty, and spent a rugged afternoon matching up often with Mike Panasiuk, a rising bully of the Big Ten.

Getting work against players like Panasiuk and Raequan Williams - the starting defensive tackles - is part of what Dantonio means when he says a ones vs. ones scrimmage has more value to the players.

Dantonio came out of it feeling comfortable with the progress Allen (6-3, 296, Soph., Hinsdale, Ill.) has made.

“I think Matt right now, he’s the one (the first-string center),” Dantonio said. “With that being said, Cole Chewins and David Beedle did not play.”

With Chewins and Beedle out, the five other players who have solidified a role in the playing group remained intact as a five-man playing group on Saturday. If Chewins and Beedle had been available, offensive line coach Mark Staten would have subbed two players into the first group and likely would have shuffled some players to different positions, and likely given Tyler Higby and/or Jordan Reid some snaps at center in the Green-White Game.

Higby and Reid took reps at center throughout the spring. But on Saturday, with limited depth due to Chewins and Beedle being held out, Higby remained at left guard all day and Reid played right tackle all day.

That adds depth to the offensive line. Beedle has played center, Higby has played center. We have messed around with Jordan Reid playing center, Blake Beuter playing center a little bit. So w

Walk-on Blake Bueter (6-4, 300, R-Fr., Howell, Mich./Detroit Catholic Central) played center for the second string throughout the Green-White Game.

“We’ve got quite a few guys in there that are competing for that position,” Dantonio said. “But the ultimate thing is we will play the best five guys. We will move people around in there, and roll people around and at the end of the day we’ve got to get the job done.”

Dantonio said junior quarterback Brian Lewerke will be comfortable with whoever gets the nod.

“I take input from Brian Lewerke at all times, but he is really an even-keel guy,” Dantonio said, when asked if he would seek Lewerke’s opinion on the race. “He is loose back there. He gives people confidence.

“From a player-selection standpoint I think he just goes with the flow and he makes everybody better, including the guy snapping the ball.”

Luke Campbell (6-5, 290, Soph., Lewis Center, Ohio) started at left tackle in the Green-White Game, in place of Chewins, who was held out due to an undisclosed ailment. Campbell started 12 games at right tackle last year, but Reid started in front of him at that position in the Holiday Bowl victory over Washington State.

When Chewins is back, Campbell will likely compete with Reid for a starting job at right tackle. Even if Campbell doesn’t win that job, his work on the left side in the spring game was noteworthy. Last year, the other four players on the offensive line had serviceable back-ups who provided breathers almost every week, but Chewins never had a functional reliever. This year, Campbell should be able to provide that type of support on the left side, whether or not he wins the starting job on the right side.

Beedle has started at left tackle (unsuccessfully in 2016) and came on midway through last year to win the starting job at left guard.



Jordan Reid (55) and Tyler Higby (70) gained starting experience last year and will vie for starting roles in 2018.

Higby began last season as the starting left guard but ran into some road bumps at the mid-point of the season and gave way to Beedle, while retaining a spot in the playing group.

“Our first offensive line is pretty much intact,” Dantonio said. “We return a lot of starters.”

Chewins, Higby, Beedle, Campbell and Kevin Jarvis have held down long-term starting roles, and Reid has started once.

“What I saw (on the spring game film) was good snap, good power, especially from guys like Kevin Jarvis,” Dantonio said. “He played extremely well.

“Matt Allen did a nice job at the center position. For a spring game, for a spring situation, they played pretty well on the ones.”

The second string o-line included three walk-ons. The second-string o-line wasn’t bad in performing against the second-string defensive line, but, as Dantonio said: “The twos have some work to do. Our number twos were younger players.”

The second string offensive line took the field as follows in the Green-White Game:

* Sophomore A.J. Arcuri (6-7, 283, Powell, Ohio) at left tackle.

* Junior Bryce Wilker (6-5, 306, Belding) at left guard.

* Bueter at center.

* Sophomore Tommy Liesveld (6-6, 280, Bloomfield Hills, Mich./Birmingham Brother Rice/transfer from Saginaw Valley State) played right guard.

* Redshirt freshman Mustafa Khaleefa (6-5, 280, Dearborn Heights) played right tackle.

WHAT ABOUT THE DEFENSE?

Is it possible for the first-string defensive front AND the first-string offensive line to both look good in a spring game, while going against one another?

Well, the offensive line didn’t make any major mistakes, but the defensive line didn’t spring many leaks.

It sounds like Dantonio saw most of what he wanted to see.

“We return 19 of our 22 starters and 40 out of the 44 deep,” Dantonio said. “We were No. 2 in the nation last year against the run and our defense was No. 7 overall, so we’ve got good players up there. Mike Panasiuk has had a great spring along with Raequan Williams. Kenny Willekes continues to be a force.”

Willekes saw some early action in the Green-White Game and then the coaches put him on the shelf for safe-keeping.

“He’s a high-energy guy, a high-motor guy,” Dantonio said of Willekes. “He had seven sacks last year. He’s a guy that looks to get better every single practice.

“He’s up to 255 pounds right now, so he’s gotten bigger, he’s become more powerful.”

Willekes, a former walk-on, broke through last year as a first-year starter by earning third-team All-Big Ten honors in the coaches’ vote.

“Last year at this time, his confidence level was just beginning,” Dantonio said. “Now, where he’s at, I think he’s a much more confident player and more versatile in a lot of respects. He’s a play-maker. So he should be a great player for us and he’s becoming a great leader as well. He’s still a young player with two years left to play.”

WHAT’S NEXT?

With spring practice finished, the Spartans will next participate in the Fourth Quarter Program, which is MSU’s strength and conditioning regimen for the late-spring and summer months, heading toward fall camp.

Michigan State is 141 days from beginning the 2018 season on Aug. 31 against Utah State, as the Spartans get back to a Friday night season-opener, the brainchild of former athletics director Mark Hollis.

“I think it gives us a little bit more preparation going into the second game,” Dantonio said. “I’ve never looked at it in terms of advantages and disadvantages. To me, when the whistle blows you’d better have your hand down and be ready to play. But we’ve had great experiences here. I think we’ve had great crowds, night crowds, at the beginning of the season and we’re looking forward to that against Utah State.”

Late strike leads Offense to victory in Green-White Game



Jim Comparoni • SpartanMag.com
@JimComparoni

EAST LANSING - With starters Brian Lewerke and L.J. Scott watching in safety along the sideline, second-string quarterback Rocky Lombardi led a 40-yard TD drive against the first-string defense in the final minute to lift the Spartan offense to a 32-27 victory in the Green-White Game.

Lombardi connected with senior wide receiver Darrell Stewart on a 19-yard TD pass with :11 seconds remaining for the go-ahead points.

Michigan State’s defense controlled most of the scrimmage, which was played before a crowd estimated at less than 5,000 people in 31-degree temps, strong winds and a wind chill in the low 20s.

Head coach Mark Dantonio massaged the scoreboard to keep the offense within striking distance for a final drive, and Lombardi, a redshirt freshman who had some inconsistent moments earlier in the day, went 4-of-5 on the game-winning drive.

“I’m always going to make that game tight (on the scoreboard), to put pressure on people to make a play at the end,” Dantonio said.

Lombardi and Stewart delivered at the end, with Lombardi delivering to a tight window while Stewart worked against Josiah Scott in the end zone.

“Rocky Lombardi played pretty well as the game progressed,” Dantonio said. “Theo (Day) came in, in the second half, and threw some good balls. He just has to get the ball out a little quicker at times. He’s a guy who should be going to prom around today. He has made a lot of progress.

“Both guys have the ability and the arms. They are major college quarterbacks and you are going to see them continue to develop.”

HEYWARD STEPS UP

Sophomore Connor Heyward had 11 carries for 44 yards, including a patient, 6-yard TD run on a counter play.

Heyward is auditioning to be the back-up tailback to senior L.J. Scott. Heyward looked like he had the makings of a legitimate Big Ten ball carrier in this game. He also showed good hands as a receiver, and threw a two-point conversion pass to Lombardi on a trans-continental.

Scott rushed six times for 22 yards, as coaches gave him some work, but didn’t expose him to much contact.

Lewerke didn’t play much after the first quarter.

“We held about 13 players out,” Dantonio said. “Some could have played, some could not have.”

'A GOOD FOUNDATION'

Proven players who sat out include left tackle Cole Chewins, left guard David Beedle, wide receiver Felton Davis, middle linebacker Joe Bachie, and'star' linebackers Andrew Dowell and Antjuan Simmons.

Junior Luke Campbell started at left tackle with the first string and played that position all day with the top unit.

“We have a good foundation,” Dantonio said. “We have experience. We have guys who have played in games at a high level and played in pressure games. From that standpoint, I feel very positive.”

Khari Willis and linebacker Grayson Miller led the defense with seven tackles apiece.

Second-string safety Matt Morrissey had five tackles.

Josiah Scott had two tackles, an interception and a pass break-up. His interception came on a deep pass from Day, which was fired into a stiff wind.

Brandon Randle had five tackles at ‘money’ linebacker. He began on the second string and then moved to first string. Tyriq Thompson, Randle’s main competitor for a starting job at ‘money’ linebacker, moved to Mike linebacker for the first time in his career, midway through the game out of necessity. With Bachie out, second-string Mike linebacker Byron Bullough played one series and then went to the sideline with an undisclosed injury which is not believed to be serious.

Cam Chambers had five catches for 50 yards, continuing a productive spring for the sophomore wide out.

Cody White had three catches for 55 yards.

Stewart had three catches for 49 yards and two TDs. In addition to the game-winning score, Stewart also had a 30-yard TD catch from Lewerke on a deep go route down the right sideline against cornerback Josh Butler.

“I thought Brian Lewerke played pretty well at the beginning of the game,” Dantonio said. “He was crisp. He was on target. We decided to pull him out of the game after a quarter and a half or so.

“The fan support was great. It was a good crowd. They got into it a little bit.”

The Spartans are coming off a 10-3 season which concluded with a Holiday Bowl victory over Washington State in December.

“Getting a bowl win, getting a good feeling to end your season, I think it carried over a lot, and we definitely rolled with that,” said Dantonio, whose team will have one more day of spring practice next week to analyze Saturday’s film and make corrections. “We’ve always had the same goals. Our goals are always to win a championship here. The first thing we have to do is win the (Big Ten) East. That’s the bar. The bar has been set around here. This is what you have to do. We’ve won championships. That’s where our focus is at all times.”

(MORE to come tonight on SpartanMag.com)

Green-White Game '18: Your Viewing Guide



Jim Comparoni • SpartanMag.com
@JimComparoni

EAST LANSING - A viewing guide for Saturday’s Green-White Game (5 p.m., Spartan Stadium, BTN):

* The game will be a controlled scrimmage with first-string defense repping against first-string offense. Second-team offense will rep against second-team defense. There will be some mixing and matching as the scrimmage progresses.

* A fluctuating scoring system will be in place, with coaches - namely head coach Mark Dantonio - awarding points to the offense and defense, based on things such as three-and-outs, first downs, turnovers and touchdowns.

Dantonio has been known to leverage the scoring system as a scrimmage progresses, hoping to put both sides in position to win late in the day, giving the offense a chance to drive to win while the defense has a chance to hold off a last-minute drive in order to win. Don't be surprised if a similar scenario is created today.

In two Jersey Scrimmages earlier this spring, however, the defense secured victory prior to any last-minute drama.

A position-by-position look at Saturday’s scrimmage, defense first:

DEFENSIVE LINE:



Kenny Willkes, improving at defensive end.

Player of Interest: Justice Alexander. Coaches and teammates say the tall, athletic junior defensive end is one of the most improved players in the program.

MSU is terribly low on pass-rushing defensive ends. In fact, that’s the only area of thinness in an otherwise terrific two-deep on defense. Michigan State is probably one quality pass rusher (to go with Kenny Willekes) away from turning a very good defense into a potentially great one.

Is Alexander ready to go from being a non-factor in 2017 into being a difference-maker in 2018? That’s probably too much to ask, but Willekes made that jump last year.

Alexander has been a first-stringer throughout the spring. I want to see him match up against proven offensive tackles such as Cole Chewins and Luke Campbell. If he’s merely functional, that would be a nice step of progress for him and the defense. If he’s better than functional, then this defense will have gained a lot this spring just in his improvement. But I need to see it to believe it.

Standout Performer: Junior defensive tackle Mike Panasiuk. He was good in 2016, excellent in ’17 and has made strides toward dominance this spring.

Willekes, who was third-team All-Big Ten last year, has improved steadily, too, by the way at both rush end and boundary end.

Having all-conference players at d-end and d-tackle, plus Raequan Williams at d-tackle, make the defensive line one of the cornerstones of the team.

Don’t Sleep On: Walk-on defensive end Drew Beesley (6-2, 246, Warren DeLaSalle). I’m not sure what to expect from him, but insiders indicate he could be the next defensive front walk-on to eventually make an impact.

On The Rise: Sophomore defensive tackle Naquan Jones. He was in the playing group last year. He has standout potential.


LINEBACKERS:



Tyriq Thompson is engaged in the best starting competition of the spring, at 'money' linebacker vs. Brandon Randle.



Player of Interest: Sophomore Brandon Randle is one of the more athletic players on the roster. He wasn’t productive as a third-down defensive end last year. Now he is playing ‘money’ linebacker full-time and is battling with junior Tyriq Thompson for a staring job. This is the most hotly-contested competition in the program.

Thompson is solid and heady. Randle is athletic and learning. It will be interesting to see who gets the nod with the first string at the outset of the scrimmage, and which player has the best day.

Whoever begins the day with the second string will hopefully get some turns on the first string as well, so that we as observers can get an apples-to-apples comparison.

Standout Performer: Junior Mike linebacker Joe Bachie has missed time this spring with an undisclosed injury. He’s one of the best in the Big Ten at his position but I’m not expecting to see him play on Saturday.

Don’t Sleep On: Randle. Even if he isn’t with the first string on this day, he has such good physical ability that he could make drastic overnight improvement at any point in his career. Remember that he is new to the ‘money’ linebacker position.

On The Rise: Sophomore Antjuan Simmons was a speedy reserve throughout the 2017 season, and wrestled away a good bit of Andrew Dowell’s playing time at 'star’ linebacker in the last two games of the season. Dowell and Simmons have been sidelined by undisclosed injuries this spring and I’m not expecting to see them play on Saturday.

Senior Grayson Miller, a former safety, has been repping with the first string at ‘star’ linebacker and has a chance to earn more trust at the position in this scrimmage.

Miller isn’t expected to outshine Dowell and Simmons in August, but Michigan State might make use of Miller in a situational role against pass-oriented teams in the fall.

The fact that Miller, a former starter, projects as a third-stringer for the fall is an indication of strength for the bottom 40 on the roster.


DEFENSIVE BACKS:



True sophomore Josiah Scott was honorable mention All-Big Ten by coaches last year.

Player of Interest: Xavier Henderson. The true freshman enrolled at mid-year and has made a quick impression at safety. He is competing for a role in the nickel defense.

Standout Performer: Josiah Scott. The sophomore cornerback was good last year as a true freshman. Soon, he could be great. But fellow cornerback Justin Layne might be better.

Don’t Sleep On: Shakur Brown. The redshirt freshman was quietly the last player to sign as part of the 2016 recruiting class. He redshirted last year, but made noise early in the spring with an interception in the first Jersey Scrimmage. Michigan State is deep at cornerback, but Brown gives Michigan State some ability on the third string.

On The Rise: Kalon Gervin. The true freshman enrolled at mid-year and has impressed right along with Henderson. But sophomore Dominique Long is going to be difficult to hold off the field at safety.


QUARTERBACK:



Brian Lewerke, holding potential to go from good to great.

Player of Interest: Redshirt freshman Rocky Lombardi has been on schedule at every checkpoint. He impressed coaches with a freelance scramble-and-throw in the second Jersey Scrimmage. Now he gets a chance to perform in front of Spartan fans for the first time. He has the inside track to become Brian Lewerke’s successor. Michigan State needs good, steady development from Lombardi for the future, and 2018 insurance.

Standout Performer: Brian Lewerke was honorable mention All-Big Ten last year and is coming off a Holiday Bowl MVP performance. The junior has added muscle to go with his 3,174 career passing yards (good for 22 TDs and eight interceptions). The second half of his career should and could rival those of Connor Cook and Kirk Cousins, which was his plan all along when the Arizona native committed to Michigan State.

Don’t Sleep On: Theo Day. The true freshman enrolled at mid-year and has been thrown into the fire as a third-stringer. No one is expecting him to stand out at these practices, but sources say he has shown good throwing form and hasn’t been shocked by the moment - so far. Saturday’s spring game will be a major test for the rookie, and a chance to end the spring with momentum.

On The Rise: Lombardi. He’s still making the transition from being last year’s scout team rookie to this year’s high-profile understudy. He improves by the day.


RUNNING BACKS:



Is Connor Heyward ready to make a statement as the trusted No. 2 man at tailback?

Player of Interest: Sophomore Connor Heyward had a nice play or two last year on kick return. Michigan State needs him to be a quality, dependable No. 2 back behind L.J. Scott.

Heyward has drawn compliments from teammates and coaches, but we need to see it for ourselves.

Standout Performer: L.J. Scott has rushed for 2,591 career yards and was honorable mention All-Big Ten last year. He has performed like a dominant back at times in his career but now needs to be an all-conference type of player week-in and week-out. Michigan State needs him to be a rock star. However, he likely won’t get a lot of action in the Green-White Game as Michigan State tries to keep his mileage down.

Don’t Sleep On: Alante Thomas (5-9, 189, Soph., Detroit Renaissance) is an interesting walk-on, a transfer from Saginaw Valley State - the brother of former Spartan defensive lineman Lawrence Thomas.

He’s quick and shifty. Can he get downhill and earn a yard after contact? He’s been getting a lot of reps with the second string this spring while Scott has had the luxury of watching. We’ll get a good look at Thomas on Saturday.

Incoming freshmen Elijah Collins and LaDarius Jefferson are expected to push for a third-string job when they arrive in August. But Thomas is setting a pretty good standard this spring, and has a chance to end the spring with a statement.

On The Rise: Heyward. Running backs coach Dave Warner said Heyward has improved his ability to plant a foot and get north. We know he has some physicality. His ball skill as a receiver could set him apart one day.


OFFENSIVE LINE:




Player Of Interest: Matt Allen was regarded as the favorite to win the starting center job. But the 6-foot-3, 296-pound sophomore has split time with Jordan Reid and Tyler Higby at the position this spring. Higby has been a functional performer at guard in the past. Reid is a rising star. Allen is … an Allen.

Allen should be ready to take this thing over, but not if this is Reid’s best position and he continues to kill it. Allen can play guard, too. Reid can play everywhere. But where will Reid be stationed for the Green-White Game? Will Allen be a first-stringer? You’ll find out when I do. The coaches have good options.

Stand Out Performer: Kevin Jarvis started last year as a true freshman and is on schedule toward becoming a star, likely at guard - although Staten continues to build knowledge and manufacture depth by getting all of his players acclimated to multiple positions.

Don’t Sleep On: Luke Campbell. He was regarded as a rising star on the o-line at this time last year and lived up to the billing by starting 12 games. Now, don’t overlook him or left tackle Cole Chewins as yesterday’s risers. They are proven players right now, and still have some rising to do.

On The Rise: Jordan Reid. The true sophomore ended last season as the starting right tackle, in place of Luke Campell, in the Holiday Bowl. This week, o-line coach Mark Staten said Reid will start in 2018, it’s just a question of where.

Staten rarely throws that kind of public bone to a player in the spring, especially a true sophomore. But Reid is earning it.


RECEIVERS & TIGHT ENDS



Sophomore wide receiver Cody White is among the best young players at his position in the Big Ten.

Player of Interest: Sophomore tight end Matt Dotson was the highest-ranked member of the 2017 recruiting class. He saw time last year as a slender, athletic tight end. He can get downfield and snag passes, but has he added enough strength and blocking skill to become an every-down threat? He has a high ceiling of potential, and could give the offense a boost of octane if he continues his metamorphosis. A big spring game from him wouldn't hurt.

Stand Out Performer: Senior Felton Davis (6-4, 195) was second-team All-Big Ten last year with 55 catches and nine TDs. He could make a run at becoming the best wide out in the conference this year. The psychology major was good last year, and still has plenty of climbing room to raise his game. He could be a monster in 2018.

Don’t Sleep On: Darrell Stewart. He made a lot of noise last September, as a receiver and when carrying the ball on reverses, and then kind of tapered off as the year progressed. Davis and Cody White are emerging starts, but Stewart has the capacity to step up for huge moments when defenses key on his teammates, the way Keith Mumphery did at opportune moments in his career.

On The Rise: Cam Chambers didn’t earn a spot in the regular rotation last year, but he has earned trust as the No. 4 man in the room this spring as a muscle guy, a possession guy. His confidence never wavered.

Here is my wide receiver notebook after talking with Terrence Samuel today.

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/spartan-wr-s-impress-with-versatility-during-spring-ball

Spring Football Report: The 3-2-1



Jim Comparoni • SpartanMag.com
@JimComparoni

EAST LANSING - Three things we’ve learned during the last week of spring practice, two questions and one prediction:

Disclaimer: It’s difficult to know for sure what’s going on in spring football, because we’re not allowed to watch much practice.

So we try to probe around and piece together information. So the following isn’t as concrete as things we might determine after watching a live game and film review. But it’s April, and any football talk is interesting football talk, in my opinion.

THREE THINGS (I THINK) WE’VE LEARNED:

1. I think there is great chemistry in the coaching rooms.

When Mike Tressel talks about the value of having a former offensive coach like Don Treadwell in the defensive film room, it’s sincere. There’s a value to having an offensive coach’s set of eyeballs bringing some insight into what past opponents have tried to do against MSU’s defense.

FBS programs were allowed to add a coach this season. I haven’t done a study on what other programs have chosen to do in terms of adding a staff member, but MSU’s hiring of Treadwell is an interesting one. Putting him on the defensive side of the ball to assist Paul Haynes in replacing Harlon Barnett is an interesting move. And Mark Dantonio’s decision to create a new role in asking Treadwell to be “Head Coach” of the true freshmen is a throwback to the way things used to be when all freshmen were ineligible, and throw-forward to something that I think is needed with incoming players today.

Tom Izzo often talks about the challenges college athletes, and college students in general, have with social media. This week, we’ve seen Michigan State sophomore basketball player Nick Ward publicly tweet his frustrations in the way some “fans” have sent him direct criticisms for his decision to test the NBA Draft waters.

Freshman college football players have immense adaptations to make during their first year on campus. They feel pressure from everywhere.

During the heat of a season, the assistant coach who recruited a true freshman and the position coach who is in charge of overseeing a true freshman, sometimes lose day-to-day contact with that freshman as he spends a year on the scout team. Coaching staff members have so many demands on their time, in terms of game-planning, watching film and getting their first- and second-stringers in order, that true freshmen sometimes are left floating in the wind a bit.

And I can’t help but notice that the occasional legal problems that Michigan State players have gotten into over the years seem to disproportionately involve first-year players. Think about it. Donnie Corley, Josh King, Demetric Vance, Auston Robertson. All true freshmen. Going back to Glenn Winston and his first arrest in 2008, and several of the allegations made in the ESPN Outside The Lines report, it’s been freshman after freshman.

Michigan State hasn’t had many problems in these areas over the years, in my opinion, despite the picture ESPN has tried to portray since January. But I think the designation of Treadwell as MSU’s freshman head coach is a smart, progressive, constructive move for Spartan football, and for the orientation of MSU’s incoming freshmen. Treadwell is a fatherly guy who has been a part of this program in the past, a person who knows Dantonio probably as well as anyone in the business, and a football man who has spent time as a head coach.

When Dantonio was asked about Treadwell on Tuesday, a broad smile came over Dantonio's face, and he spoke glowingly about a chat he had with Treadwell while jogging that day. They are two like minds, two like hearts. Treadwell knows and respects how Dantonio thinks, and Dantonio knows Treadwell will offer the right words and direction to freshmen this year - direction they haven't had in the past.

Treadwell has already started with that process.

“We have about seven rookies in now, entered early, so it gives you a chance to get to know those guys, whereas if you are just dealing with your position group, you may get to know some of them in due time,” Treadwell said. “But when your task is to make sure you get to know them, then it gives you a chance to broaden that support net that we have here. And we have great support here. We coach as a family.

“Yeah, we all have a position group, but we also communicate to one another. That will be a fun part becasue we get to see things on the field, to be able to share things as we evaluate them and we also get to know them as people. We are all mentors to a degree. I think that will be kind of an ongoing role.”

And then listen to Paul Konyndyk’s interview with defensive tackles coach Ron Burton, when Burton is asked about working with new defensive ends coach Chuck Bullough. Burton’s expression and exuberance are unmistakable. It’s obvious that Burton likes tag-teaming with Bullough.

I’ve covered 29 seasons of Michigan State football, and I’ve seen coaching staffs changes many times, and have heard assistant coaches say good things about new arrivals on many occasions. But the chemistry and good vibes surrounding MSU’s new hires this year seems a cut above past experiences, from my vantage point.

Of course, none of that chemistry will mean much if the Spartans don’t produce on the field - especially on defense, where replacing Barnett will be a task.

As I said in a V-Cast earlier this spring, Barnett probably could not have left the defensive backfield in better shape. The secondary is filled with young, proven players - each with a high ceiling of potential to aspire to from this point forward.

As for the stamp that Mike Tressel will put on this defense, that’s something we won’t possibly get a feel for until the pads start hitting in public in September. Even Saturday’s Green-White Game won’t reveal how Tressel will play his cards in the fall.

But it’s April. And we can wonder.

2. Things Are Physical.

I asked an offensive coach this week for his overall impressions for how things are going this spring. Aside from the general positives that you usually here from coaches, he said the defense, as a whole, has played with physicality.

We know the defense was good, statistically, last year, ranking No. 7 in the country in total defense.

And we know the defense should be better this year, with nine returning starters and 14 defensive players returning with starting experience.

Those veteran players are showing no signs of complacency. Instead, they are doing what you would expect them to do - they are maturing, and working to improve their technique. The result, according to the offensive coach I spoke with, has been a more physical version of those 14 players than you’ve seen in the past.

That sounds favorable, to me.

And it’s no surprise that the Michigan State defense has stymied the Spartan offense in the two spring Jersey Scrimmages thus far.

Saturday will mark the final meeting of the spring, and the most important one, in terms of measuring individual and collective progress.

3. The X-Factors Are Coming Through.



Connor Heyward has impressed teammates this spring.

At least that’s what I’m getting from our attempted detective work.

MSU’s question marks for the spring: defensive end, back-up quarterback, back-up tailback, center, tight end depth?

Michigan State seems to be making progress in all of these areas, with surprise gains being made in some places - namely Justice Alexander at defensive end.

We’ve heard good things about Alexander from a few people in recent days and months, dating back to bowl practice. It continued through the first half of spring with teammates and assistant coaches saying good things about Alexander, who has been athletic but inconsistent up to this point in his career.

Then on Tuesday, Dantonio sounded off about Alexander.

“Justice Alexander is making progress, great progress,” Dantonio said. “He’s 6’5”, 260-265, long jumps 10-2, verticals 34-35, so I mean he’s finally starting to play fast and you see some good things from him.

“There’s a bunch of guys making moves.”

Among them: Redshirt freshman Rocky Lombardi as the second-string quarterback; Connor Heyward as the second-string running back; Cam Chambers, rising into the wide receiver rotation as the fourth man; sophomore Matt Dotson, as one of the top three tight ends.

* Brian Lewerke on Heyward: “I think he’s going to be a big part of the offense this year for sure. He’s one of the guys that is very good at seeing the hole and hitting it hard. He obviously likes to run over guys. That’s two big things that are good for him.”

* Lewerke on Dotson: "He’s very athletic, obviously tall. So you can kind of just throw the ball to him in the red zone which is advantageous for him, for sure."

* Tight ends coach Jim Bollman on Dotson: "He knew that he needed to work on his blocking and improve on that, and he’s really doing a great job of doing that. He’s always been a very good runner and continues to improve on other parts of the game too."

* Offensive coordinator Dave Warner on Chambers: "Cam Chambers has come on. He’s been playing all three positions. He’s done better than okay. he’s done very well for us this spring. He is one guy that I see moving up and fitting into the mix there."

One of the biggest questions remains who is going to become Brian Allen’s successor at center? Sophomore Matt Allen, junior Tyler Higby and sophomore Jordan Reid have been competing at center this spring.

Offensive line coach Mark Staten says Reid is in good position to become a starter at some position. Will it be center? None of us knows at this point, and the players don’t know, either. Staten likes to keep them guessing, keep them working, keep them competing. But Reid, who saw time last year as a true freshman, appears to be improving as rapidly as anyone in the program right now.

As for Higby, it’s good that he is learning the center position, just to provide some manufactured depth and know-how along the front line.

“Playing center has helped me learn more about the line in general,” Higby said after practice on Thursday. “When you play center, you have to know what everyone else is doing, and their assignments on each play.”

He says that’s carried over in making him a better offensive guard. And this week in practice, Higby has dabbled at left tackle.

Higby began last season as a starter at left tackle, but eventually lost that starting job to David Beedle, due in part to some minor dings. Now, with spring reps at center at left tackle, if Higby doesn’t regain a starting job this fall, he is getting in position to be a valuable utility player at every position along the offensive line. That’s the type of quality depth that takes hold when the bottom 40, or “next” 40, of a program is strong.

TWO QUESTIONS

1. Can Lombardi Turn It Up?

Lombardi has played to good reviews in practice since August. On Saturday, he will play in front of a live audience at Spartan Stadium for the first time, and a nationwide BTN audience.

Defense has dominated the spring. Lombardi and true freshman Theo Day have done some good things in the scrimmages thus far, but there have been some mistakes as well. So I’m intrigued to see how Lombardi finishes his first spring in East Lansing.

2. Will Justice Alexander Shine?

When they say he is playing well, I’m wondering how well? Is he merely functional? Or better than that? Demetrius Cooper was functional last year. Michigan State needs something better than that, and I frankly didn’t expect Alexander to deliver, based on his lack of contributions in his first two years.

But all these good things we’re hearing about him makes me pause, and makes me curious as to just how “good” is good, when we’re talking about Alexander’s level of play.

We will see Alexander play some rush end and some boundary end. He and Kenny Willekes are both capable of playing both d-end positions.

We’ll see Alexander on the left side, and the right side, against the first string. That means, as long as everyone is healthy, we’ll see Alexander against proven offensive tackles likes Cole Chewins and Luke Campbell. We know Chewins and Campbell can block good Big Ten defensive ends. If Alexander defeats them a few times, I would chalk that down as a favorable occurrence.

In the past, I have not been impressed with Alexander’s ability, or inability, to turn the corner with speed and flexibility as a pass rusher. It’s usually difficult to gain aptitude in that area. It seems that some players either have that flexibility or they don’t.

Alexander can help at d-end even if he isn’t a great hoop-running edge guy. But if he surprises me and shows now capability in that area, then this Michigan State defense will become a bit more interesting for 2018.

ONE PREDICTION:

1. Kenny Willekes Will Play Big.

I just spent a bunch of paragraphs talking about Justice Alexander, and the good reviews he’s been playing to. But Willekes, a former walk-on who emerged as a surprise standout as a third-team All-Big Ten selection a year ago, has taken his game up yet another notch, from what I’ve heard. Good sources tell me he has gone from good to very good.

With that being the case, and the relentless, competitive motor that he plays with, I suspect he’ll have a noisy afternoon on Saturday.

Good stuff from Ron Burton tonight as far as an all-around progress report on the position.

He seems to be enjoying having Chuck Bullough as a tag-team partner on the d-line. He likes the perspective Bullough brings as well as the passion.

That's one high energy, high intensity duo.

Here's my notebook

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/burton-sees-improved-pass-rush-from-michigan-state-d-tackles

I posted some of these observations on the board already, but here's a notebook with 10 of the more intriguing nuggets from interviews today, including Tressel's comments about Mike Panasiuk being the MVP on defense thus far during spring ball.

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/ten-takeaways-big-mike-doing-big-things-other-developments

Lewerke says he'll try and take fewer risks in the passing game, and as a runner in '18.

I think I remember my Sunday School teacher saying something about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

In other words, I'll believe it when I see it.

Anyway, here is a Lewerke notebook

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/lewerke-intends-to-play-smarter

And here is the video from the story

Login to view embedded media

Here is the story I wrote on Warner's challenge to Scott to be a complete player. It's good stuff, and Warner's frank and honest conversation is refreshing. I hope it comes through that he cares about Scott, because that's my sense. But he's not sugar-coating anything either. He's laying things out the way they are, and that's what Scott needs to hear.

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/warner-challenges-scott-to-be-a-complete-rb-team-leader

Here is my notebook from Dantonio's pre practice briefing

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/ne...e-controlled-scrimmage-format-for-spring-game

As the minutes tick down to the 2018 Final Four, I can't help but consider what could have been if things would have played out slightly differently. Here are the 5 questions that have been rattling around in my head this week:

1) How would MSU have have viewed the season and tournament had UofM lost to Houston and MSU had beaten Syracuse, but lost to Duke by 20 points?

2) If MSU and UofM were to have traded tournament draws, how would things have played out? Would UofM have even beaten Bucknell or Syracuse? Would MSU gotten past Houston? Would MSU have made the FF?

3) If Bridges would not have come back, how would the season have played out? (This one is a little tricky based on the lack of perimeter depth, but let's say for argument's sack that Arhens was healthy). MSU would certainly have lost more games, but would the other players have developed more? Would MSU been placed on a more favorable part of the bracket and advanced farther?

4) If UofM beats Loyola tonight but loses on Monday, what if MSU had beaten Syracuse and then gotten hot and beaten Duke, KU, and Nova? Would MSU have been able to beat UofM in the title game? As an MSU fan, would you trade one more Final Four if it gave UofM a Natty? Would you accept a loss in the 2nd round if it ensured UofM doesn't win a Natty?

5) If UofM wins on Monday night, is it the worst end to any sports season of all time for MSU fans?

I have an opinion on all of these, but I am curious to the opinion on the board

Here is a link to the article I wrote on Lombardi on the front page

https://michiganstate.rivals.com/news/lombardi-getting-critical-reps-needed-for-back-up-qb-role

With all of the UofM hang wringing / lovefest, let's put things in a bit of perspective here. My question is this: How does Beilein compare to some of the other coaches of teams that have "cycled up" during the Tom Izzo era?

How about Bo Ryan? I believe that he finished his career with a winning record against Izzo, won 4 Big Ten titles, and 3 tournament titles, and went to 2 Final Fours.

How about Thad Matta? Matta had his share of wins over Izzo, won 5 Big Ten titles, 4 tournament tile, and also has 2 Final Fours.

How about Bruce Weber, or Tom Crean, or even Matt Painter? Those guys have had some nice runs.

By my count, Beilein has 2 Big Ten title and 2 BT tournament titles, and now also 2 Final Fours. He could win a title next Monday. That would be a nice feather in his cap, but it would also be the same number of titles as Kevin Ollie.

What Michigan has shown is that they are no longer a laughing stock. Beilein can certainly coach and (which the help of A LOT of good fortune) has maxed out his current team. But, let us also not forget that as recently as the week before the 2017 BTT, a lot of Michigan fans thought that maybe they needed to move on. That was 13 months ago. Yes, Michigan had two consecutive years when they out-performaned MSU in March. But, even in this "golden age" of UofM basketball (since 2011), MSU still has more total wins, more Big Ten titles, and more BTT titlesin that span.

Like Illinois, Ohio State, Purdue, and Wisconsin, Michigan has cycled up to be a legit contender right now. But, MSU under Izzo has been, and shall continue to be, the gold standard in the Big Ten. Yes, this year sucked. Yes, MSU has underachieved the last three time we have had a Top 3 seed. That is a concern, but I am not convinced there is much going on there other some bad luck. Any other conclusion is recency bias. Just because MSU has not made the Sweet 16 in the past three years does not mean MSU is going to suddenly be an NIT team and Michigan is going to win the next 8 Titles. We just have to actually take them seriously. As for my original question, I think it is pretty clear that Bo Ryan and Thad Matta both had more successful careers than Beilein to this point.

As for the Michigan love-fest, I want no part of that. As I have stated many times before, MSU-UofM is a virtual zero-sum game. Their success is objectively bad for us. The primary reason for this is that they always get disproportionately more praise when they succeed than MSU does, and disproportionately more slack when they fail. That is just the way life is. It is no secret that historically UofM has tried to keep MSU down. This only gives that movement more ammunition.

Athletic success to their entitled, arrogant, narcissistic fan-base is like giving a bottle a whiskey to an alcoholic. So, "Uncle John" might a nice guy and good at his job, but you never want him to get a hold of a bottle of wine or he will just ruin Christmas for everyone. That is essentially what happened this year. Michigan is going to hear nothing but praise for the next week (and hopefully not longer than that). There is no need for MSU fans to contribute out of some sense of fairness or respect. They never show MSU fairness or respect, and I see no reason to "take the high road." They don't deserve it. You are only enabling their bad behavior. Unlike UofM fans, I don't give a rat's behind what they think of us. Screw them.

I hope Loyola beats them by 100.

FIVE THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT: MSU's Jersey Scrimmage

Jim Comparoni • SpartanMag.com
@JimComparoni

EAST LANSING - Michigan State staged its first Jersey Scrimmage of the spring, Thursday at Spartan Stadium.

Media were not allowed to attend.

So what can we glean out of the morsels of information released on Thursday? Here are my Five Things To Know about Thursday's closed scrimmage:

1. L.J. SCOTT PLAYED AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT


LJ Scott (3) maneuvers around defensive tackle Raequan Williams (99) during Thursday's scrimmage. Photo courtesy MSU.

Michigan State released a photo from the the scrimmage, with Scott carrying the ball, between the tackles, working through and past Raequan Williams.

Photo worth a thousand words?

My Take: I’m not expecting Scott to get a lot of live-tackle work this spring. He has had some upper-body injuries, and procedures, in the past. Michigan State has rested workhorse upper class running backs in past springs, such as Scott last year and Le’Veon Bell in 2012.

The fact that Scott was in uniform and carrying the ball in this scrimmage, first of all, indicates that he is feeling good, with all body parts functioning well. He missed some practice time at the outset of spring, so it was good to see him back out on the field and in working order. The time he missed is not believed to be due to physical ailments.

Michigan State didn’t release stats from the scrimmage, so we don’t know how many carries Scott had. My guess is that he didn’t play much, maybe a carry here or there. That would be the wise thing to do, in my opinion. Coaches know what he can do, and he knows the playbook (although he had some foggy moments in 2016). So this is a time to maybe give him a glimpse or two of scrimmage speed, and then rest the wheels and parts for most of the off-season.

Let the record show, or at least the photograph, that there were no grass stains or dirt stains on Scott, Williams or the first offensive lineman in the photo released by Michigan State. Those uniforms were laundry-room clean. There is a little grass stain on the knee of the right guard. I suspect that that photo was shot on one of the first plays of the scrimmage.

So it’s good that Scott was in uniform, getting some work. But I’m not concluding for a second that he had more than a handful of reps. And don’t expect a statistical release stating he carried the ball 20 times for 100 yards.

2. I'M LEFT WONDERING ABOUT THE OTHER RUNNING BACKS


Connor Heyward, shown here during last week's practice, needs to emerge as a reliable second-string running back this spring.

Madre London has transferred to Tennessee. Gerald Holmes has graduated. If Scott didn’t play much, as is the usual mode of operation for Michigan State personnel decisions in the spring, then how about second-stringer Connor Heyward?

Great question. I don’t know. We’ll try to learn more during interviews on Friday - the first time we will have a chance to conduct interviews in more than two weeks.

3. CAM CHAMBERS MADE A PLAY


Sophomroe WR Cam Chambers tries to break the tackle attempt of Tre Person during Thursday's scrimmage with Tyson Smith (15) converging.

Chambers, the big, sophomore receiver, is shown running with the ball during the scrimmage, presumably after a reception. He’s working against a tackle attempt by sophomore cornerback Tre Person in the photo while cornerback Tyson Smith is also in the frame.

MY TAKE: I’m not afraid to comment on a still photo. Heck, I have an opinion after watching a cloud or a train go by, so why not have an opinion on a still photo from a scrimmage.

First of all, the grass looks pretty solid. Not a bad thing for mid-to-late March. These can be cold, soggy days, most years. The cold isn’t a problem. Dry cold is good for a field, giving the players a chance to get outside and scrimmage at the stadium.

As for Chambers, it’s a majorly important spring for the 6-foot-2, 215-pound wide out from Sicklerville, N.J.

With Hunter Rison and Trishton Jackson having transferred, there is room for a fourth wheel in the receiving corps to go along with Felton Davis, Darrell Stewart and Cody White. Someone needs to jump into the playing group and earn trust.

Chambers enrolled at Michigan State two years ago as a mid-year guy along with Donnie Corley. Corley, Jackson and and Rison each edged ahead of Chambers in the receiver pecking order. But Chambers has made slow, steady progress behind the scenes. With Corley long having gone away, and now Rison and Jackson gone, it’s time for Chambers to have a statement spring.

Chambers had five catches for 66 yards last year, and was targeted (incomplete) on a deep post in the end zone late in the Holiday Bowl, getting reps ahead of Jackson and/or Rison.

I’m not ready to proclaim that a photo of Chambers trying to battle through a tackle after an apparent catch signals his arrival. But if I were an Michigan State fan and there were any player I would want to see depicted in a still photo after the first scrimmage of the spring, it would be Chambers. He was in uniform, he looked the part, he made a play. That’s positive.

4. THE SPARTANS SCRIMMAGES FOR ONLY 60 SNAPS
That’s a low number of snaps for a scrimmage, but not a low number for the first scrimmage of a spring. The Spartans often scrimmage for 90-plus snaps during the peak days of spring football or August camp. The Spartans are likely building up to that level.

Michigan State had regular practice time at the outdoor practice fields at the Duffy Daugherty Building on Thursday before walking across Shaw Lane to finish the day with the 60-snap scrimmage at Spartan Stadium.

“We practiced and scrimmaged both, so we got a lot done,” Dantonio said in a set of short quotes released by the university. “You come over to the stadium and let them play. The coaches are off the field and there’s no do-overs. There’s referees, you pipe in some crowd noise, and everything is game like. So we try and simulate game-like situations the best we can for them. I think that’s the biggest thing and how you grow the best. You put pressure on them and put them in different situations, or allow the situations to take place, rather than script them.”

The Spartans were off two weeks ago due to spring break. Last week, they practiced in shells (shoulder pads, no leg pads) on Tuesday, March 13 and then practiced for the first time in full pads on Thursday, March 15. Two more padded practices on Saturday and Tuesday set the foundation for this week’s scrimmage on Thursday.

Six practices remain prior to the Green-White Game at 5 p.m. on April 7 at Spartan Stadium.

5. THE DEFENSE WON. BIG DEAL?
The defense won the scrimmage, 12-3.

MY TAKE: Not much. Low-scoring scrimmage on a day with limited snaps.

Dantonio has been known to alter the scoring as a scrimmage goes along in order to set up a close finish, to put pressure on the offense to execute late. Maybe that wasn’t the case this time, or perhaps the defense is that far ahead right now. Hard to say. Either way, no big deal. But you don't want the offense to win a 45-43 shootout in the first scrimmage of the spring. Show me high-scroring scrimmages and I'll show you a leaky team in the fall.

“You have to watch the film to see how everybody played, but the positive thing is you step back and let people play,” Dantonio said. “We have some young quarterbacks and we let them go today. They made some throws and they made some mistakes, but that’s all part of it. I thought it was a good day today.”

As has been the case in recent years, Dantonio’s quotes following scrimmages offer little information on which individuals or position groups played well, or which ones struggled.

But he did reveal that young quarterbacks played, made some throws and some mistakes. I saw Rocky Lombardi outside the stadium on Thursday during my walk from the stadium parking lot to Breslin Center for the high school state semifinals. Rocky looks like he always does - happy to be on campus.

I also saw linebacker Joe Bachie as he left the stadium and walked to the Skandalaris Center. He looked good and cranky.

“He was a young player last year, a very dynamic player,” Danotnio said of Bachie. “I think he can build on things, in terms of knowledge. He’s got leadership skills; I think he can build on that leadership skill.”

As for the young quarterbacks getting a chance to play, I took that to mean Lombardi and true freshman Theo Day. Day enrolled at Michigan State in January. Putting him on the field after just seven practices, and three in pads against the Spartan defense surely made for one of the most educational football experiences of his young career, and probably one with more than a few miscues. But he’ll be ahead of where a regular freshman QB would be in August when preseason camp starts.

No details were released on Lombardi’s performance. It’s a big spring for the redshirt freshman from Des Moines, Iowa, as he is the unquestioned second-string QB behind Brian Lewerke, due to the transfer of Messiah de Weaver.

* Michigan State will practice again on Friday. Media will be allowed to watch, although there’s a chance the players won’t be in full pads, having scrimmaged a day earlier.

Due to the defense's victory on Thursday, the defense will now be wearing the green jerseys. The offense wore green at the outset of spring practice this year because the offense won the last scrimmage of preseason camp in August. These things can carry over for a long time, which puts a little extra incentive and pride on the line for the scrimmages.

WILLIS STEPPING UP


Khari Willis had a productive 2017 and is working to make further statements in 2018. (Photos courtesy MSU)

Dantonio said this about his team when they practiced for the first time in pads, last week, after a week off for spring break:

“They had a great attitude coming back from spring break. We have good leadership from our older guys. I really feel like our football team is all going in one direction, and that’s a very positive thing.”

Compliments for senior leadership is a theme for spring practice thus far. Bachie, Lewerke and Khari Willis seem to be the unquestioned alpha dogs of the group this year, which is a welcomed change from the uncertainty of last spring and the lack of success from the year before.

“Guys like Khari, myself and Joe Bachie have stepped up, trying to lead this team,” Lewerke said. “Khari was a leader for us last year, but I can definitely tell that he has recognized his role and stepped up even more.”

Willis (6-0, 214, Sr., Jackson) was honorable mention All-Big Ten last year by media and coaches. He recorded 71 tackles after starting all 13 games at boundary safety. He had 5.5 tackles for loss and 4.0 sacks.

Willis spent a portion of winter conditioning studying film of himself and the defense as a whole.

“We’ve seen things on film throughout the year and after the year, after doing studies, coaches doing studies, looking for ways to get better and there’s a lot of them,” he said. “So we’re going to go out and try to make the most of those opportunities.”

The 12-3 victory in the Jersey Scrimmage probably sits well with Willis.

“I’m juts very excited to be back out, being able to play football,” he said.


PRO DAY ON TAP
MSU’s annual Pro Day scouting combine will take place from 1 to 3 p.m. on Friday.

“We have five guys working out (Brian Allen, Demetrius Cooper, Chris Frey, Gerald Holmesand Brett Scanlon), and that’s the fewest we’ve ever had,” Dantonio said. “But they’ve been good players for us and a lot of NFL teams will be here represented. Pro Day will be a little smaller for us this year, but that’s not a bad thing, because it means most of your guys are back. It should be a great day.”

Michigan State is one of only five schools to have had at least one player chosen every year since the inception of the common NFL Draft in 1967. MSU joins Florida, Michigan, Nebraska and USC as the only programs with at least one draft choice for 51 consecutive years. Hopes and expectations rest with Allen to continue to that streak.

As we all come to terms with the tremendously disappointing end to the season, let’s try to put things into perspective using some historical numbers in the modern tournament era (1979 to now)

This year, MSU failed to make the Sweet 16 for the third consecutive year. Yes, that sucks. But, Izzo has a total of 13 Sweet 16 appearances, which is tied for 6th all time:

Coach K – 24
Roy Williams – 18
Jim Boeheim – 18
Dean Smith – 15 (in the modern era)
Calipari – 14
Izzo -- 13 (tied with Olson, Pitino, Calhoun, and Self)

Furthermore, if we consider the rate at which coaches reach the S16, Izzo still gets there 62% of the time. Only two active coaches with more than 10 tournament games are over 70%: Coach K (71%) and Calipari (74%), and only Bill Self (65%), Roy Williams (64%), and Sean “I can’t get to the Final Four” Miller (64%) are in the 60s.

How about Regional Finals?

Coach K – 14
Roy Williams – 13
Pitino – 12
Calipari – 11
Dean Smith – 10 (in the modern era)
Izzo -- 9 (tied with Self)

As for rates, Calipari leads the way with 61%, Pitino is at 57%, Roy Williams is at 48%, Bill Self is at 47%, and Izzo is 5th at 45%, ahead of Coach K at 42%. These numbers will chance a bit this weekend, but not by much.

Final Fours?

Izzo’s tally of 7 is tied with Pitino for 3rd in the modern era behind Coach K (12), and Roy Williams (9). Calipari can tie Izzo this year (and is likely to do so).

As for Final Four rates, Izzo is tied for second at 35%, with Coach K at 36%. Calipari, Pitino, and Williams are all at 33%.

Also of note is that Izzo has the record at 14 for the most wins as the highest seed (with Boeheim now right behind at 13). The next highest active coaches only have 7 (Beilein, Marshall, and Few).

Izzo is in the Top 6 is overall tournament winning percentage and is the only active coach with more than 10 tournament wins who is over 0.500 as the underdog.

The bottom line? Izzo is still very much an elite tournament coach, even after the last 3 years.