This is Part 1 of 2. This doesn't include offensive personnel, but I figured you know enough about those guys. I'll get the offensive guys done in a few minutes.


Pre-Snap Read: Michigan State vs Ohio State

By Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com

East Lansing, Mich. - Ohio State is the better team. Everyone knows that. But the scoreboard doesn’t know that. And when they turn the scoreboard on, Ohio State will have 60 minutes to prove its the better team to the scoreboard. Ohio State had better not come in here thinking it can waste any of those minutes.

Ohio State will be facing an average, inconsistent, improving Michigan State team that is unified, energized and has more confidence than it probably should. That can be a dangerous formula, as Northwestern found out last week. But OSU has more nuclear power than Northwestern, enough to stave off any hiccups or problems and just nuke their way to safety.

Ohio State is very good, but not as good as they think they are. The QB Justin Fields is special, but wasn’t special in his last outing. It will be interesting to see how he bounces back against a quality defensive backfield bent on testing him with some of the quizzes he failed in his last game.

I thought Fields might be the best player in college football prior to OSU’s messy 42-35 victory over Indiana. But he showed in that game that he had some shortcomings in terms of making reads and staying disciplined. Maybe it was just a one-time thing and he’ll snap back nicely in this game.

FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST

OSU is shaky in the defensive backfield. The Buckeye secondary is worse than MSU’s, Indiana’s and Iowa’s, among Big Ten teams I’ve watched closely this year.

OSU has Kerry Coombs as a first-year defensive coordinator. That’s a big-rig job for an aged career position coach. He hasn’t done well.

Quality control in the defensive backfield is not nearly at a National Championship caliber. OSU simply cannot beat Alabama, Clemson (and probably wouldn’t beat Notre Dame, Florida or even Oklahoma) with their defensive backfield playing the way it’s been playing.

They haven’t had many games or practices to sort things out, and I’m not sure they would get it sorted out with Coombs. I don’t know that he’s incapable, but he hasn’t shown so far that he is capable.

OSU hasn’t changed personnel in the defensive backfield despite some terrible mistakes that would have resulted in a revolving door for the playing group if Dantonio/Barnett were in charge.

More on the defensive backfield later.

OSU’s run defense is good, not great.

OSU’s pass rush is good, not great. That’s not a great combination for a shaky pass defense which has the worst free safety I’ve seen at OSU in years.

OSU’s run offense is good, not great. The run game can ramble nicely, but lacks some explosiveness.

Their pass game is outstanding, with Fields and the offensive system seemingly keeping things easy while riding two excellent receivers. Add Fields’ ability to run, and it’s just so hard to make this team punt, much less keep them out of the end zone. They just chunk you and chunk you and chunk you.

THE MACRO MATCHUPS

So how does all of this match up vs. Michigan State?

MSU’s run defense has been pretty good this year, ranking No. 3 in the Big Ten in yards allowed per rush at 3.4. That’s a pleasant development for people who were worried about a massive dropoff in this area due to changing to a 4-2-5. So far, it hasn’t stunt Michigan State all that bad since Iowa went for 226 in game three. MSU’s gap integrity, especially with inside linebacker Noah Harvey, has improved quite a bit over the last two games.


MSU’S RUN DEFENSE vs OSU’s RUN GAME

Can Michigan State contain OSU’s running attack? For awhile, possibly. But Michigan State will miss Jalen Hunt at defensive tackle if he isn’t able to play due to last week’s lower body injury. He was in a boot for the second half of last week’s game. No official word on his availability but it did not look good.

The redshirt-freshman has been a difference-maker this season, capable of hanging against an OSU or an Alabama. OSU can load up with the inside zone game and blast you with it, especially if you keep two safeties back to guard against the pass. You need guys who can beat one-on-one blocks inside as well as withstand double-team blocks. Hunt can do that.

Naquan Jones can do some of that. Dashaun Mallory can do some of that. But they can all do it so much better if they had Hunt with them to tag team and reduce the wear. Jacob Slade played 38 snaps last week and has started most of the season. He’s capable. He can hang in a game like this. But I don’t know who the new fourth DT will be, if they use one. You need a full set of four tires at DT against OSU, among other things.

OSU leads the Big Ten in rushing offense (233 yards per game) and yards per rush (5.2).

OSU gets rolling with the outside zone, usually behind tight end blocking. And you have to honor QB Fields with the bootleg keeper on the other side, which reduces your pursuit.

RB Master Teague is a good truck, but I’m not sure about his vision or ability to bounce to open space for the home run. He’s good, but he’s not JK Dobbins.

Michigan State tackled extremely well last week. Michigan State might have some bangs and bruises after a physical game against Northwestern. These OSU guys are harder to tackle than the Northwestern guys.

OSU’s run blocking is good, not great. I don’t see the freight train people like Wisconsin. Individually, their o-line is better than Iowa’s but I don’t think they work together as well. Still, their stats are impressive.

I think their run game is helped immensely by their pass game. Opponents are reluctant to play with an extra man in the box on defense. Opponents want to play two safeties deep to try to contain the pass game first, and that makes things less crowded for the run game.


MSU’S PASS DEFENSE vs OSU’s PASS OFFENSE

OSU leads the Big Ten in yards per pass attempt (10.7), well ahead of No. 2 Maryland (8.3). [Michigan State is No. 8, by the way at 7.0).

Fields makes it all look so easy, from the roll out passes to the drag routes, to the deep seam routes and posts, to the ball-control swing passes. Everything seems to work and the ball never seems to hit the ground. Until last week.

Indiana frustrated him with their changing coverages and shape-shifting pressures. He encountered some problems early, and then compounded it by forcing bad passes and making mistakes. He was intercepted three times, marking the first time all year he had thrown a pick. Last year, he threw 41 TDs and only three interceptions.

The guy just flat doesn’t throw interceptions.

But he did in the last game.

So THE big question is whether Michigan State can emulate and replicate some of the things Indiana did.

Well, not exactly the same things Indiana did, but Michigan State CAN operate within the same family of concepts and changing pictures that bothered Fields last game.

Michigan State’s pass defense grew immensely during its victory over Northwestern. Michigan State changed coverages seamlessly and bothered Northwestern QB Peyton Ramsey, especially late in the game, with cover-three, cover-three lock, cover-four, cover-one and cover-two, all used interchangeably in the last five drives of the game, none of which resulted in points for the Wildcats. You don’t need to know how each of those coverages work. Just think about a MLB starting pitcher needing to have four pitches. Then think about a MLB pitcher who has six pitches. That was MSU’s pass defense last week.

But that was against Northwestern. Ohio State is a much more difficult test. So you can’t expect to keep OSU to 4.8 yards per attempt like you did with the Wildcats. As stated, OSU averages more than 10 yards per pass attempt.

Fields averaged his usual 10 yards per pass attempt against Indiana’s excellent pass defense last game (18 of 30 for 300 yards), HOWEVER he was baited into three interceptions.

Indiana will turn you over, and sack you, more than any team in the Big Ten. OSU fell prey to that web last game and it almost cost them a victory.

That being said, OSU still managed to score 35 points on offense. That’s after Indiana had a “good” day in pass defense.

So we have to define our terms here. It’s possible that Michigan State could play quality defense, contain the run a little better than Indiana did, and maybe “hold” Ohio State to 8 yards per pass attempt. Well, if they do those things, the Spartans are still going to give up 30-plus points.

Can they turn over OSU the way Indiana did while “holding” OSU to 35 points? That seems doubtful. As good as MSU’s pass defense looked last week, Michigan State doesn’t force turnovers and sacks as well as Indiana does. And this is going to be a Justin Fields bent on improving over what he considered the worst college game of his career.

As for OSU’s wide receiver personnel, No. 5 (Wilson) and No. 2 (Olave) are tricky-quick AND fast and just plain hard to cover, especially within coach Ryan Day’s simple yet complex system. Those guys just get open. Michigan State has improving coverage men. Kalon Gervin provided perhaps the best coverage of his career last week after missing a game due to injury. Shak Brown has five interceptions on the year and is a quality cornerback. Xavier Henderson and Tre Person are quality safeties. Those four, plus freshman Angelo Grose, are learning to play together extremely well.

You can have all that at Michigan State, but 5 and 2 are still going to get open, and Fields is going to deliver it on target. And if they are covered, Fields has the legs to tuck and run for 15 or 20 yards on you. That’s the backbreaker. As hard as it is to stop all their other stuff, IF you are fortunate enough to have a good defensive call and good execution, he can tuck and run and get 15 on you anyway. Or he can scramble, keep his eyes down field and beat you with an impromptu flip, like he did vs Michigan State last year. He drove Dantonio crazy with that stuff last year, and Dantonio just had to respectfully tip his hat to a truly special QB.

If there’s a negative to Fields’ game, it’s that he sometimes holds the ball too long. This has been a factor in OSU ranking second-to-last in the Big Ten in sacks allowed. Fields gets sacks a lot because he holds the ball a long time.

I kind of understand why he holds the ball so long. He has strong faith that 5 or 2 are going to get open. The longer he holds it, the better chance they have to get open. Some of his sacks come when he tries to elongate the play by half-flushing out of the pocket. Again, all understandable.

Holding the ball an extra beat leads to more sacks but it probably helps his completion percentage because he rarely unloads the ball just to abort a mission. Maybe he’s trying to protect those stats. Wouldn’t surprise me. Would he rather take a sack than have an incompletion go against his numbers? Makes me wonder sometimes.

Michigan State is No. 4 in the Big Ten in yards allowed per play. Not bad. Not a bad defense. But Indiana has a good defense too, better than Michigan State’s. And OSU went through Indiana for 607 yards on a “bad” day for the OSU offense.

OSU has scored 52, 38, 49, 42 points in its four games thus far. You can probably expect a similar figure against Michigan State.

Can Michigan State possibly keep up? Highly unlikely. Michigan State needs OSU to make the same interception and coverage mistakes that they made against Indiana, but Michigan State doesn’t have the skill in the pass game to force the type of coverages mistakes OSU committed against Indiana. But OSU will probably spring a few leaks anyway.


MY BIG QUESTION

Ohio State has played only one football game in the last 26 days. That’s usually not a big problem at bowl season. But bowl games are packed with practices leading up to the game.

OSU’s practices were interrupted last week. They’ve had two games canceled in the last three weeks. Their ability to get on the practice field and correct mistakes has been short-circuited. Their head coach, Ryan Day, hasn’t been on the practice field with them all week and won’t coach them this week.

This is a sloppy OSU team in terms of pass protection and pass defense that needs games, practices, corrections and improvement. They’ve got the pure horsepower to likely beat Michigan State something like 49-10. But will OSU be a little rusty, a little distracted by the questions as to whether this game will be played, and whether OSU will become eligible for the Big Ten Championship Game and thereby the College Football Playoff. And what about the talk that Michigan might try to opt out of its game against OSU next week. OSU has been planning to hang 100 on Michigan.

But first, can they operate like an improved machine against Michigan State despite the lack of games and practices?

I assume the Buckeyes will be just fine. But - aside from Alabama - no assumptions have been safe in college football this year.

If there is a path to competitiveness for Michigan State in this game, the distractions and rustiness that Ohio State COULD affect the Buckeyes would certainly have to be a factor. Ryan Day says OSU will be slightly short-handed, personnel-wise, due to COVID-19 positive tests. We don’t know which players might be affected, but Ohio State has plenty of players at all positions … except in the secondary, apparently.



MSU’S OFFENSE vs OSU’S DEFENSE

Indiana’s Michael Penix threw for 491 yards on 27 of 51 passing with 5 TDs and 1 INT.

Rutgers’ Noah Vedral and Artur Sitkowski combined for 232 yards passing on 34 of 49 accuracy with 0 TDs and 0 INTs.

Penn State’s Sean Clifford completed 18 of 30 passes for 281 yards with 3 TDs and 1 INT.

Rutgers and Penn State are as aerially-challenged as Michigan State is.

Michigan State is nowhere near as potent through the air as Indiana. But Michigan State might be able to get into the 200s IF the Spartans are able to play complementary football, a Mel Tucker likes to say, and establish the run.

Penn State could NOT establish the run vs OSU and basically stopped trying. Indiana did worse, netting -1 yards rushing.

Nebraska, and to a lesser extent Rutgers, got things going on the ground.

OSU ranks No. 4 in the Big Ten in yards allowed per rush attempt at 3.5.

OSU has a good defensive front seven, but they are not ball-busting great. OSU is prettier in the front seven than Northwestern, but overall they are in the same ballpark.

Michigan State stunned Northwestern by rushing for 195 yards last week. Northwestern was a little flat and stale after its big win against Wisconsin. That was part of it. The other part is that Michigan State was fresh and full of belief after a week off and constructive practices.

In order for Michigan State to stay competitive in this game against Ohio State, the Spartan rushing attack has to show signs of being as good as it was last week. Nebraska rushed for 210 yards against Ohio State. That was in the opener, which seems like YEARS ago on Oct. 24. But still, OSU is merely good, not great, in run defense. That doesn’t mean Michigan State is capable of rushing for 175 against the Buckeyes. But I wouldn’t bet my dog against it.

Michigan State rode the inside zone run, and some zone read option, to a healthy daily allowance of run yardage last week.

Michigan State introduced wider splits a couple of times. The zone read option was used a little more than usual. Michigan State also did some new things a couple of times with the front side pull guard acting like he was going to pull out front and fold, but he would then ease up and capitalize on a favorable angle.

Michigan State o-line coach Chris Kapilovic is working with some decent, not great, talent at Michigan State. They are improving steadily. He is adding little nuances each week. Is it possible they can continue to improve and MSU’s run game can carve out a level of effectiveness against this good, not great, and potentially rusty and distracted (and maybe even short-handed) Ohio State defensive front?

Hey, it’s 2020. I’m not writing anything off.

But Michigan State is expecting to compete favorably and win the first series, and the next, and go from there. I’m not saying they will succeed. I’m just telling you they are a band of 75 guys, including a bunch of Ohioans, that are still having fun playing this sport.

As shaky as Rocky Lombardi has been at times, IF he has a decent run game on his side, and IF Michigan State avoids turnovers, and IF Michigan State manages to punt the ball better than your local high school team, then Michigan State MIGHT be able to do decent things with field position, contain the run, and maybe slow down Fields a bit with some changing coverages and coverage pressures, that the Spartans could be a bounce, break, pick-six away from making this interesting.

Lombardi isn’t capable of carrying this thing by himself. But if he has a good rushing attack, he can then go to work against OSU’s weakness. It’s secondary. He won’t throw for 491. Michigan State won’t score 35 points. But can he get them to 27? And can Michigan State hold Ohio State to 26? Highly doubtful, but not impossible.

Day is stressing out a little bit.

"I just think the emotional toll it takes," Day said during his radio show on Thursday. "To say just, 'It's OK, we're just going to get over it' isn't fair. We've had to just continually get over the disappointments, these stops, these starts.

"To go win a football game at any level, but certainly in college football and at Ohio State, you have to get yourself emotionally ready to play any game. And when those games are taken away, it's hard to create that momentum again."


BACKGROUND INFO

* Last year, Jeff Hafley was co-defensive coordinator at OSU, along with Greg Mattison.

Hafley left to become head coach at Boston College.

Kerry Coombs is listed as co-coordinator this year along with Mattison. Coombs is 59. He was a respected high school coach in Ohio at Cincinnati Colerain from 1991 to 2006.

He was DBs coach at U of CIncinnati from 2007 to 2001, and then spent four years as CBs coach for Urban Meyer at OSU.

He left OSU for two years to be defensive backs coach for the Tennessee Titans in 2018 and ’19.

He came back to OSU this year to replace Hafley, earning $1.4 million. He’s reportedly making $300,000 more per year than Mattison.

I never thought Mattison was so special.

Coombs, at 59 years of age, is coordinating a defense for the first time at this level.

I’m kind of stunned that this hasn’t been mentioned as a national talking point when discussing OSU’s candidacy to win a National Championship. From what I’ve seen so far, they don’t have the defense to do it. At all. They can make corrections in the back end and they still won’t be good enough. But I don’t have any reason to believe the corrections are going to be made.

* In 2018, Greg Schiano was co-defensive coordinator with Alex Grinch. Grinch left to be sole DC at Oklahoma. Schiano left coaching for a year and resurfaced as head coach at Rutgers. The OSU defense of 2018 did not play well. Too many gap assignment errors early in the season against TCU, and it never cleared up, eventually leading to the shocking blowout loss at Purdue.

Basically, OSU fixed its defensive problems last year with Hafley, and then he left. Now they have Coombs. Every year they get further away from the Urban Meyer era, I wonder about quality control. This year, I'm wondering more. Fields is ultra special. After Fields is gone ... we'll see.

* OSU’s results this year:

Ohio State 52, Nebraska 17
Ohio State 38, Penn State 25
Ohio State 49, Rutgers 27
Ohio state 42, Indiana 35

None of those games were quite as close as the score indicates, other than the Indiana game, with the Hoosiers fighting back from a 35-7 deficit.

After that game, Day told his players in the locker room that they needed to have more of a killer instincts, to put teams away, not let them hang around.

That all sounds good, but that’s harder to do when your defensive coverages keep blowing gaskets and the OSU coaches keep putting the same players out there.

OSU is very good. And if Fields is right, they can put 50 on almost anyone. But the Buckeyes don’t look like a National Championship team to me. Can Michigan State stay with 20 points of this type of team? That’s what we’re going to find out in another fun, pressure-free, measuring-stick exam for Spartan football as we continue to take inventory on Mel Tucker and what’s in the cupboard.

But for this piece, let’s get back to the Buckeyes:


THE MICRO: Ohio State Personnel

DEFENSE

DEFENSIVE LINE
The Skinny: They have tall, athletic, pretty defensive ends straight out of pass rushing central casting. However, they don’t play quite as well as they look. They’re good, probably NFL players at d-end, but not great. Not as good as last year.

D-tackles are good, but not dominators.

Pass rush is good, not great. If Michigan State could keep Michigan’s Kwity Paye and Aidan Hutchinson quiet, as well as Northwestern’s Eku Leota, then Michigan State has a decent chance to keep OSU’s defensive ends quiet as well.

OSU doesn’t blitz any more than the average team. It’s not like they’re going to rain pressures at you from every angle.



DEFENSIVE LINE

DE 0 JONATHON COOPER (6-3, 257, Sr., Gahanna, Ohio)
* Was a 5.9 four-star, ranked No. 4 in Ohio.
* His senior year in 2019 was snuffed out by an ankle injury, so he redshirted and returned.
+ Quick with slants inside, crossing your face and penetrating.
+ Quick inside move for sack in 1Q vs replacement LT of Indiana.
+ Pretty good shoulder club and bend on an outside rush late in the Indiana game.
* He has had a lot of pass rush attempts this year but only 1.5 sacks.
* I’ve seen projections that he is likely a late-round NFL Draft pick. That sounds about right to me.

(9 Zach Harrison, Soph., long-armed d-end. Played 30 snaps against Indiana.
* Was a 6.1 five-star recruit, ranked No. 1 in Ohio, No. 23 in the nation.
* Has 1.5 sacks on the year.

+ Good with his hands but doesn’t have great flexibility to turn the corner.
* Had a nice pressure on the QB in the 1Q against Indiana, hands to get to the outside and then closed good, not great, to get his hand on the ball while Penix was throwing.

(Harrison good with the shoulder club to get away can’t quite finish running the hoop like a Pro Bowler).

(DE 8 Javontae Jean-Baptise: Played 13 snaps vs Indiana.


NT 72 TOMMY TOGIAI (6-2, 300, Jr., Pocatello, Idaho)
* 5.9 four-star recruit, ranked No. 76 in the nation.
* Leads the team with 3.0 sacks and 3.0 TFLs.

DT 92 HASKELL GARRETT (6-2, 299, Sr., Las Vegas)
* Was a 5.9 four-star recruit, ranked No. 4 in Nevada and No. 119 in the nation.
* First-year starter, quality player.
* OSU has a way of making NFL players wait until their senior year to become starters, and that’s probably the case with this guy.
+ Pretty good shoulder club move for a sack against a waste-bending RG of Nebraska.
(52 Antwuan Jackson, No opinion)

DE 54 TYLER FRIDAY (6-3, 265, Jr., Ramsey, NJ)
* Was a 6.0 four-star recruit, ranked No. 2 in New Jersey and No. 68 in the nation.
+ Pretty good shoulder-club/arm-over to beat Rutgers TE for a QB hit in the 1Q.
* No TFLs on the season thus far.

* He had the speed to peel him off and cover a RB in pass coverage down the sideline as part of one particular pressure. It’s not something OSU wants on a regular basis, but they’ll peel him off as part of a zone blitz or man drop on occasion. And he looks like he can do it, to give you an idea of what type of athlete we’re talking about.


(DE 11 Tyreke Smith, was a 6.0 four-star recruit, ranked No .2 in Ohio and No 34 in the nation.
+ Good long-armed bull rush for a pressure in the 1Q vs Indiana. Good with the bull rush for another pressure, later.
* Showed crazy good speed for a d-end in running down Rutgers RB Pacheco two games ago on a trick play that got out.
* Has four tackles on the year.

* If you run outside zone, these DTs 92 and 72 will push your pull guards a yard behind the line of scrimmage as they try to run wide. And the DE 9 will do the same at the edge. That bottles up your RB and allows OSU’s heat-seeking inside LBs to come downhill right at your chin for a pop at the line of scrimmage. Michigan State hasn’t been a good outside zone team this year and I wouldn’t expect much progress there this week.

* Against the inside zone, the DTs are good, but not disruptively dominant. Michigan State of a month ago would have had a miserable time against their DTs. Michigan State of last week should have a shot to function okay.


OSU LINEBACKERS

* OSU will keep three LBs on the field most of the time, other than third-down passing situations. They are a base 4-3 team. The size and athleticism of LBs Baron Browning and Pete Werner are part of what make the Buckeyes feel they are special enough to go with a standard 4-3, even against three- and four-WR sets.

OSU likes to have that run-stopping, thumper, tail-kicking LB size on the field to stop the run but also feels that those guys move well enough to help defend the pass, inside or outside, via zone or man. That’s asking a lot. But when you have athletes like OSU, you can ask a lot from them - in theory. And the theory would seem strong if OSU’s pass defense were better.


**

In the back seven, OSU’s base defense goes with one safety and three cornerbacks. They did this last year too.

Sometimes, they will take one CB out and put a second safety in. Against Indiana, they went about half-and-half between three CBs and two CBs.

Even against Indiana’s four-WR sets, OSU would stick with three LBs, putting one of the LBs on a split-out tight end. This is the antithesis of a 4-2-5. OSU feels its big LBs are athletic enough to cover in space if necessary.

Whereas Michigan State fans wonder if a 4-2-5 can match up physically to an Iowa, Buckeye fans are wondering if it’s a mistake vs 3 and 4 wide outs to play with three LBs, and press three CBs and a single safety deep? Why not take one of the LBs off the field, add another safety, and have him roam and morph around in coverage help?

That’s college football defense these days. Pick your poison.

OSU’s pass defense problems aren’t the fault of linebackers. However, if they played with five DBs more often, maybe some of those pass plays that have gotten out wouldn’t have gotten out.

The way OSU plays it, OSU is almost always “plus one” in the box against the run. And they usually do it with press man-to-man on the wide outs. That leaves only one safety for the deep middle.

They figure they’re going to take away the run, and their athletes are good enough to cover your receivers and they only need one safety to help over the top.

Well, we learned that OSU’s DBs were NOT athletic and skilled enough to cover Indiana’s WRs, especially with that QB Penix slinging it. Michigan State isn’t equipped to do the same thing (although it was a week ago when I said Michigan State wasn’t equipped to do things on the ground against Northwestern that Wisconsin had done. I was wrong about that. Michigan State out-produced Wisconsin on the ground).

OSU leaves its single free safety on a trapeze without a net quite often, and he has had some terrible slip-and-fall accidents this season. More on him and the secondary later.

The LB Skinny: Some say it’s the best linebacking trio at OSU in years and years. I wouldn’t go that far. They’re good. About like Northwestern’s in overall effectiveness, although Browning isn’t similar to anyone physically. He’s a bit of a freak, in terms of size and athleticism. Still learning to play with all that ability.


WILL 20 PETE WERNER (6-3, 242, Sr., Indianapolis)
* Was a 5.8 four-star recruit, ranked No. 4 in Indiana.
* Versatile LB who can drop and cover an inside WR in zone and turned up the sideline to cover IU’s Whop Philyor on an out-and-up on a third down, covered him well on that INC.
* Three year starter, graded out internally at the “champion” level in eight games last year.

MLB 32 TUF BORLAND (6-1, 234, Sr., Bolingbrook, Ill.)
* Was a 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 9 in Illinois.
* Multi-year starter, multi-year captain.
* Good quickness, as tough as his name, decent speed.

SAM 5 BARON BROWNING (6-3, 240, Sr., Fort Worth, Texas).
* Former 6.1 five star recruit, ranked No. 3 in Texas, No. 9 in the nation.
* First year as a regular starter.
* Former MLB who played behind Borland has moved to outside LB.
* He stands out when he roams the field as a guy who is as big as some defensive ends, yet he plays outside linebacker, and they keep him on the field to drop-zone in the slot.

* He has quick reaction time a fast first step when breaking on the ball and then hits like a truck when he gets there because he’s … big, fast and into it.

* No teams would play a 4-2-5 if all teams had a Baron Browning that they could use in patrolling the flats.

* Graded out internally as a “champion” in four games last year.


OSU SECONDARY
The Skinny: The safety, 23, Hooker, has been woeful.

OSU graduated three DBs to the NFL after last year.

In the second half of three of their games, OSU has been exposed through the air.

OSU’s slot cornerback, Cameron Brown, was lost to injury in the Penn State game. His replacements have been shaky.

* OSU’s base defense is to go with 3 CBs and 1 safety.
They use CB Wiliamson in the slot.

* As poorly as OSU’s secondary played, three of the four starting DBs played every single snap against Indiana. Dantonio/Barnett never would have stood for that.


CB 24 SHAUN WADE (6-1, 195, Sr., Jacksonville, Fla.)
* Was a 6.1, five-star recruit, ranked No. 5 in Florida, No. 24 in the nation.
+ Pick six against Indiana, undercutting an out route to the field and taking it back 36 yards giving OSU a 42-21 lead.
* Played slot CB last year, moved to outside CB this year.
- Struggled against Penn State’s Jahan Dotson (8 catches, 144 yards).
- Allowed 2 TDs against PSU and one TD against Rutgers.
- Allowed a 56-yard TD to IU’s Fryfrogle. Wade played press. IU threw a back-shoulder deep 50-50 ball. Fryfrogle got away with a push. Wade fell. Safety Hooker loafed in coming over the top late.
* Preseason All-America candidate who hasn’t played as well as the hype.


CB 21 MARCUS WILLIAMSON (5-10, 186, Sr., Westerville, Ohio/Florida IMG Academy)
* Was a 5.8 four-star recruit, ranked No. 52 in Florida.
* Struggling at slot cornerback. Inconsistent.

CB 7 SEVYN BANKS (6-1, 200, Jr., Orlando, Fla.)
* 5.7 three-star recruit, ranked No. 74 in Florida.
* No opinion.

SS 23 MARCUS HOOKER (5-11, 200, Soph., New Castle, Pa.)
* Was a 5.7 three star recruit, ranked No. 21 in Pennsylvania.
* Struggling badly.
* I don’t mean to be mean, but he’s the worst Ohio State safety I’ve seen in a long time.
- Think about some of David Dowell’s coverage busts and miscommunications last year and the year before. There were a few. Now roll them all up into one game, and that was Marcus Hooker two weeks ago against Indiana.

* If your safety is committing assignment errors, you at least want that guy to look sleek and fast and athletic, like he can be a good player once he gets stuff figured out. But he doesn’t look fast.

Examples:

- Was at the scene of the crime at the end of a 63-yard TD pass to Fryfrogle last week. It was cover-three and he had the deep middle and Hooker just drifted too far to the weak/side short side. He left too big of a seam.

Fryfrogle attacked that seam on a vertical dialed up as a cover-three beater. Penix delivered an NFL arm throw. Lombardi can’t do that quite like that. But it was a drift-bust of sorts.

- Allowed 33-yard TD to Fryfrogle. Hooker bit up on the run threat by Fields, didn’t stay as deep as the deepest, and give up the TD behind him, cutting the lead to 35-21.

- Was at the scene of the crime on a 16-yard crossing route to WR/RB Ellis for a TD on fourth-and-10. OSU tried to play two-deep/man-under. That was the first time all day I had seen OSU play “two-man.”

But Hooker didn’t stay on his half of the field. He took some cheese to the outside, and the crossing route ran right up the street where he was supposed to be. Not good.

As a side note, big LB Browning was assigned to cover Ellis on a crossing route. That’s part of the problem in keeping three LBs on the field against an empty set on fourth-and-10. Browning wasn’t quite nifty enough to miss the pick wash in the middle of the field, and didn’t have Hooker staying home in safety help on the other side.

- Hooker banana-peeled in run support in allowing Rutgers’ RB Pacheco to get out for a 66-yard run. After the banana peel (curved angle in pursuit), Hooker was unable to make the tackle and then was unable to run down Pacheco down the sideline.

Pacheco doesn’t have great speed, but OSU’s free safety couldn’t catch him. Sadly, OSU defensive end Tyreke Smith ran him down and pushed him out of bounds inside the 10. Hill ran side by side with Hooker on this play and Smith, at 6-4, 267, had better straight-line speed than the Ohio State safety.

- Hooker missed a poor attempt at a shoulder tackle on a crossing route vs Rutgers, which got out for about 30 yards to the 1-yard line.

- Missed a tackle on RB McCaffrey of Nebraska on the first play of the game, for a gain of 47 (30 after Hooker’s missed tackle). (McCaffrey is a back-up QB, but he played RB on that play).

**

OSU often subs Williamson out and goes with Josh Proctor as a safety. Proctor can play in the slot as man-to-man or as a safety as part of a two-deep. He’s still trying to find his sea legs.

(S 41 Josh Proctor will play. began playing with him in a 2 safeties look late in 1q. Will play some slot safety. 41 was late with a banjo switch on 4-yard TD pass which tied the game at 7-7. Indiana ran a bunch set with a rub. OSU needed to banjo it, which is an old school way of saying they needed to do a basketball switch)
* 41 was getting time against Indiana, but is not economical with his footsteps. Is a step wrong here and there, allowing slight windows on curls and sideline comebacks.

I caught up with BuckeyeGrove.com's Kevin Noon for this week's Opponent Perspective Q&A.

Here's what I came back with.

This is the type of long form, player-development story we used to run in SPARTAN Magazine that I've heard some of you old-timers longing for.

This is the first time we've had this long to talk with an offensive line coach, this deep into a season, in two or three years. So we were able to dive deep a little bit.

Some of you may have watched the Zoom interview with Chris Kapilovic, so some of these quotes are a rehash. But we add some context to them. In the old SPARTAN Magazine days, we might get this type of interview one-on-one and you wouldn't have seen the video of this interview as a spoiler. But we're doing what we can do.

IYMI: Story on the front by Ricardo Cooney:

I think the light bulb went on for Aaron at some point in the last 10 months and that is a scary thing for everyone left on MSU's schedule. He now looks like a real leader out there.

Here is a bit of a cool story that I haven't shared yet here. Through my association with another website, I actually have had access to media credentials for certain games over the past year or so. I was able to join the Zoom press conference tonight and Aaron really impressed me. We was very well spoken, confident, and has all of the trappings of a leader. He is grown up.

But, the main reason that I say that is that I had a chance to "cover" one game at Breslin last year. It was the Wisconsin game where Winston set the all-time assist record. I had a chance to do interviews in the locker room. I didn't ask to many questions since it was my first time (but I did shake Winston's hand and asked Tillman a question about winning on the road, to which he gave me a 5-minute detailed explanation. THAT dude is just as impressive as he seems.)

Henry was in the locker room and seemed standoffish and almost pouty that no one was asking him any questions. He actually stood up and said something to that effect... and Paul K went over to talk to him. I was a bit surprised by his attitude. But now, it's like light and day. I am really proud of his progress. He is going to be GOOD this year.

I'm sure I got the name wrong but I noticed he started this past weekend. Pretty impressive for a true freshman. Wasn't he the kid who didn't start playing football until the end of high school? I'm pretty sure we were his only major offer. Good job CMD.

Dwan Mathis hasn’t looked great at UGA but saw he is in the portal. Worth going after?

Here is my notebook from today's press conference. It was good press conference as Jim alluded to. Well worth the watch.

Rocky Lombardi is up right now.

He said that he knew coming into NW that he would be a running threat as part of the game plan.

Lombardi asked about uncertainty with Ohio State.

He said it helps that they've been through this before. Treat it like normal week. Prepare to play, and see what happens.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Login to view embedded media
He has ~50 offers...

We're trying to find out as much as possible, but the popular belief seems to be that he's going to flip his soft verbal from Florida to Stanford.

However, MSU is in the top group and he maintains that it's neck & neck and that a decision honestly hasn't been made.

Therefore, we'll continue diving into into it in case MSU ends up being the choice. But as of right now, I think we're going to finish second, but ahead of the other 47 offers.

I posted this at 5 a.m., on the front.

But with the front of this site, and all Rivals.com sites, being down due to some broader network outage, I'm posting the column here, in case you missed it this morning or earlier this afternoon:


DotComp: It's too bad a crowd can't give Langford the ovation he deserves tonight

By Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com

East Lansing, Mich. - When Joshua Langford takes the court tonight against Eastern Michigan, so many things will be different, yet much of it will be unchanged.

The last time he wore a Spartan uniform on a game day, he had Kenny Goins, Matt McQuaid, Nick Ward and Cassius Winston as teammates.

Now, those guys are gone. He’s surprised he’s still here. He’s never shared the court with Rocket Watts, Malik Hall or Julius Marble in a game.

And when he takes the court tonight, there will be no fans to give him the long standing ovation he deserves, having journeyed through surgeries, 23 months of rehab and an untold amount of tears while contemplating retirement.

But he’s back. The injury-plagued foot has been feeling good enough to practice full-go for more than a month. Head coach Tom Izzo indicated that Langford might start during tonight’s season opener against Eastern Michigan (6 p.m., BTN) at Breslin Center. For Langford, it still feels like a dream.

“I’ve thought about it a good amount of times,” he said. “I don’t know what it’s going to be like. I haven’t played in two years, and then how everything is going to be different, in terms of no fans. I haven’t played in an atmosphere like this. So I think there’s going to be a lot of different emotions.”

The point guard duties are being handed over to Watts, with help from Foster Loyer.

Aaron Henry and Gabe Brown were new puppies when Langford last played next to them. Now they are blossoming veterans.

Marcus Bingham is still being prodded to achieve consistency. That process will take place all year, with an expected track of ups and downs.

Izzo’s foot will be planted firmly on the backside of each one of them. That’s the part that will be familiar for Langford.

“Nothing has changed,” Langford said. “We’re still Michigan State. We’re going to go out and play Michigan State basketball and we’re going to win.”


THE OLD LANGFORD

Langford was averaging 15 points per game on a bad foot when the injury became too much to overcome and he was lost for the season in December of 2018. He was shooting 40.3 percent from 3-point range and contributing 3.6 rebounds and 2.3 assists.

A year earlier, as a sophomore, he averaged 11.7 points, shot 40.4 percent from 3-point range and was co-recipient of MSU’s Best Defensive Player Award.

He’s the only McDonald’s All-American on the roster.

Beginning tonight, we get to see how much of the old Langford still exists.

Izzo said two weeks ago that Langford is as close to 100 percent as he’s going to get. It’s unclear Izzo meant Langford can’t get any healthier, or if Langford is close to being the Langford of old.

Media have not been able to attend practice. The public hasn’t been treated to the usual preseason assortment of exhibitions such as Midnight Madness, the Green-White Game or exhibition games.

Langford’s game is once again a mystery. He’s been on campus for five years, will turn 24 in January, yet we don’t know what to expect from him.

Izzo says fans and media need to be patient. It might take Langford awhile to harness a level of consistency. That’s if his foot remains healthy.

Izzo says Langford won’t baby it. They’ve made a pact to push him full bore, and whatever happens happens.

The pushing begins tonight.

“I’m just out there playing, man,” Langford said, when asked if there will be a cap put on his playing time at first. “I’m just going to go out there and see what’s what and just embrace the moment.”

Izzo will share the moment with his return to the court after his battled with COVID-19. He finished his two weeks of self-isolation over the weekend and rejoined the team at practice on Monday.

Together, Izzo and Langford will take the court tonight. Langford doubted this day would ever come. On some level, Izzo might have feared it might never happen again for himself. But here they are, and here it is. On Thanksgiving Eve.

“Ultimately, I’m just thankful that the lord has allowed me to be able to come back,” Langford said. “He’s put great people around me to get me back - my trainer, Nick Richey. Our strength coach, Marshall Repp, and my teammates who are constantly supporting me. My coaches who are constantly supporting me and my family who have been constantly supporting me as well.”


‘ONE MORE YEAR!’

Langford went through Senior Day festivities as a departing Spartan last March. However, Langford and Izzo made it known that there was an outside chance that he could return. Breslin Center fans chanted “One more year! One more year!” as Langford briefly addressed the crowd on March 8, the last time an athletic event was staged at Breslin Center.

The arena remained quiet through the spring months and half the summer as a nation and planet battled COVID-19.

The doors reopened to players for voluntary workouts in early July. Formal workouts began a few weeks later, and then full-team practices commenced.

Gradually, Langford’s recovery gained momentum. Izzo saved space for Langford on the roster. They were in regular communication, albeit rarely face-to-face through most of the off-season. Then, in early fall, it became clear that Langford was ready to practice full-go. There have been no setbacks since.

“Just to be back on the court, I know it’s going to be special because I know it’s not going to be just about me, but it’s going to be about the people who are around me and helping me get back on the court,” Langford said. “So I’m just excited. I’m just thankful.”

There are new faces, and Langford didn’t expect to be among them at this stage in his life. But he sees a familiar fire that still burns in the players in this program. And he likes it.

“When you think about the core, when you think the attitude of this team, it’s definitely like every Michigan State team in terms of we’re going to be tough, we’re going to run, we’re going to rebound, we’re going to defend,” he said. “We’re going to play Michigan State basketball.”

Langford carries so much respect from coaches and players. He’s deeply religious and has always been open about sharing his faith with teammates, and helping guide them. He was that way when he was one of the younger players on the team. Now he’s easily the oldest.

“It’s been new to me,” he said. “To be honest with you, I didn’t expect to be in college for five years. It’s definitely been an adjustment, but it’s been exciting just because I can pour into those guys.”

He’s a captain. Izzo is leaning on him to not only be available in support of his teammates, but to also try to demand of them. That will be new ground for the soft-spoken native of Huntsville, Ala.

Tough love? That might not be his speciality? Wisdom? That’s his jam.

“I’ve been trying to give them wisdom, how to do certain things, and just be coachable and listen,” he said. “So many different things that I didn’t get when I was a sophomore, when I was a freshman or a junior so that they can get it and go faster and move quicker than I moved.”

He came in as a part of a recruiting class that included fellow McDonald’s All-American Miles Bridges and Cassius Winston. It was one of Izzo’s top-ranked recruiting classes.

They were favored to win the National Championship in 2018, but were upset in the second round of the NCAA Tournament.

Langford watched from the sidelines, with his foot in a protective boot, as Winston, Goins and McQuaid upset Duke in the Regional Finals and went to the 2019 Final Four.

Another trip to the Final Four might have been on tap last year, again without Langford. But COVID-19 stole those dreams from Winston and his teammates.

Now, Langford’s dreams remain. Surprisingly. His journey continues. He’s letting it take him wherever it may lead, full of faith and intrigue.

It will be up to guys like Watts, Henry, Brown, Joey Hauser, Hall, Bingham, Thomas Kithier and Marble to help Langford craft his final chapters.

He’s been watching from the bench for almost two full years. He’s viewed the game like a coach. He’s sat in on all the meetings, and witnessed the fine-tuning from a different angle.

Now, he views this team through a more knowing prism.

“I think what’s unique about this team is we have so much across the board, one through five,” Langford said. “It’s going to be exciting. I expect a lot out of this team.”

In part one of this series, we took a look at the recently released Big Ten Men’s Basketball conference schedule and did some math to see how easy or difficult Michigan State’s schedule is compared to the competition. In general, MSU’s strength of schedule is in the middle of the pack. Among the projected contenders, MSU’s schedule is easier than Iowa’s schedule, but more challenging than Wisconsin’s and Illinois’ schedules.

While this information is interesting, the real question is what can the data tell us about MSU’s odds to hang a fourth consecutive regular season championship banner in the rafters of Breslin Center? Fortunately, I have just to tools at my disposal to answer that question.

I have described my methodology in the past in some detail, but the basic details are as follows. I start with the data from Ken Pomeroy’s website which tabulates the adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies of each team. If these numbers are subtracted, it provides an “adjusted efficiency margin”, which correlates very well to the Las Vegas spread.

I have shown previously how the Las Vegas line correlates to the probability that the favored team will win straight up. The odds can be modeled using the the Normal/Gaussian distribution where the mean is the spread itself and the standard deviation is 10 points. I even derived why the standard deviation is 10 points, which is due to the fact that basketball teams usually shoot around 50 percent from the field and college basketball games usually consist of about 70 possessions. For reference, Figure 1 below shows the correlation between the spread and the odds for the favored team to win.


Figure 1: Correlation between the closing Vegas line and the odds that the favored team wins straight up. The best fit line is based on the Normal Distribution where the standard deviation is equal to 10.04 points.

Once there is a method to predict the odds for the outcome of any arbitrary game, it is possible to set up a Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the odds of various full season outcomes. This type of simulation is basically a very large set of virtual coin flips using a random number generator where the “coin” is weighted based on the odds generated from the Kenpom efficiency margin data and the correlation in Figure 1.

In this case, I simulated the entire Big Ten regular season a full 1,000,000 times, because my computer didn’t have anything better to do on a Friday night. The results of this simulation provide a great deal of information, including the expected number of wins for each team, as well as the odds of winning anywhere from zero to 20 conference games. Those data are summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1: Expected win totals and the full win distribution matrix based on 1,000,000 Monte Carlo simulations of the Big Ten season utilizing Kenpom's preseason adjusted efficiency margin data


As mentioned in Part One, the preseason Kenpom data suggests a very competitive Big Ten race, with six Big Ten teams in Kenpom’s preseason top 20 and 10 Big Ten teams in the preseason top 30. As such, the top 10 conference teams all have similar expected win totals which range from just over 10 win for Minnesota and Indiana to over 13 wins for Wisconsin.

Not only do the Badgers have the highest preseason Kenpom ranking, but they also have the easiest overall conference schedule. As a result their projected expected win total (13.3) is over a full game higher than the next two teams on the list: Ohio State (12.0) and Michigan State (12.0).

As for MSU, as the win distribution data shows, based on this analysis the Spartans are most likely (53 percent odds) to win between 11 and 13 regular season Big Ten games. The odds of winning 14 or more games are 24 percent, while the odds of winning 10 games or less are 23 percent.

While there are certainly caveats to this analysis, I believe that this result speaks mostly to how very competitive the Big Ten is expected to be this year. If Kenpom’s projections are accurate, they imply that 15 of MSU’s 20 conference games will have a point spread of less than five points.

The Monte Carlo simulation also provides the odds for each team to end the season in at least a tie for first place, which would ensure a share of the regular Big Ten title. Those odds are summarized below in Table 2.

Table 2: Big Ten regular season championship odds based on the results of a 1,000,000 cycle Monte Carlo simulation utilizing preseason Kenpom adjusted efficiency margin data.


As Table 2 shows, Wisconsin is projected to have the best odds to win the regular season title at 38 percent. These odds are over twice as good as the teams with the next best odds: Ohio State (18 percent) and Michigan State (18 percent).

Wisconsin’s huge odds advantage is due in large part to the previously mentioned schedule advantage. If MSU and Wisconsin were to meet on a neutral court, the Badgers would only be projected to be favored by about a point, based on the Kenpom data.

To put this in further perspective, if MSU were to have Wisconsin’s schedule, I calculate that the Spartan’s odds to win the Big Ten regular season title would rise to 26 percent (an eight percentage point improvement). Conversely, if Wisconsin were to play the Spartan’s schedule, their odds to win the Big Ten would fall to 28 percent (a drop of 10 percentage points).

The win distribution data in Table 2 provides some additional hints as to how the Big Ten regular season title race to likely to proceed. The numbers at the bottom of the table give the odds of the final record of the eventual Big Ten champ(s). The most likely outcome is that the Big Ten champ will finish 15-5 (34 percent odds). The odds of the Big Ten champ finishing at 17-3 or better is only nine percent. A 16-4 champ has 20 percent odds, while the odds of the champ(s) finishing at 14-6 are 29 percent.

It should also be noted that the final record of the eventual Big Ten champ is significantly higher than the expected number of wins for any Big Ten team. In other words, the eventual champion(s) will almost certainly need to overachieve relative to the Vegas spread / nominal victory odds.

For example, MSU is only “expected” to win about 12 games. In order to claim the Big Ten title, MSU will likely need “overachieve” by two or three games in order to hang another banner. But, overachieving is exactly what championship teams do. They win more toss-up games than the non-championship teams.

As I mentioned above, there are quite a few caveats to this analysis. Just like any other simulation, the results shown above as only as good as the source data and assumptions. In this case, the biggest source of potential error is in the Kenpom data itself. While I still believe that efficiency data is a gold standard, it is certainly not infallible, especially in the preseason, and especially in 2020. If MSU (or other Big Ten teams) are significantly better (or worse) than Pomeroy’s preseason projections, that team’s odds will obvious either increase or decrease.

In my analysis of college football, I have enough historical data to build in a level of known uncertainty into the calculations. I don’t current have that data for basketball, but I plan to start collecting it. In the future, this should allow for a more accurate prediction of Big Ten basketball odds.

We now know MSU’s odds to win the regular season Big Ten title (just under 20 percent). But, that is not the only Big Ten banner at stake in 2021. The Spartans will also have a shot to hang a banner for winning the Big Ten Tournament at the end of the year.

My Monte Carlo simulation provide more information than just the number of wins for each team and the odds to finish in at least a tie for first place. I also can project the most likely seed for each team in the Big Ten Tournament. Once I have that data, it is also possible to simulate the results of the tournament itself. That will be the subject of the third and final installment in this series. Stay tuned.

In the first two installments of this Big Ten basketball preview, we have taken a close look at the Big Ten conference schedule and the results of a simulation of the Big Ten regular season. The results show that Michigan State has a schedule of average difficulty and about an 18 percent chance to win the Big Ten regular season title. Furthermore, Wisconsin seems to have the edge in the Big Ten regular season race, due to a combination of the fact that the Badgers are supposed to be pretty good and the fact that they have the easiest schedule in the entire conference.

However, the Big Ten also hands out banners and trophies to the team that wins the Big Ten postseason tournament. Do the Spartans have better odds to add this specific addition to the rafters of Breslin Center? Once again, it is possible to use the magic of mathematics to find out.

I reviewed the basic methodology in my previous installments. Very briefly, I use adjusted efficiency margin data from Kenpom.com, convert the projected point spreads for all Big Ten regular season games into win probabilities, and then perform a full season Monte Carlo simulation to generate odds.

In addition to tracking which team(s) finish in a at least a tie for first place in the regular season, I have also added the tiebreaker rules for seeding such that I can generate a complete set of odds for the Big Ten Tournament. As with the previous analyses in this study, this analysis is heavily reliant on the idea that Kenpom’s estimation of each teams strength is accurate in the preseason.

Table 1 below summarizes the results of this part of the simulation and shows the odds for each Big Ten team to earn each seed from No. 1 to No. 14 in the Big Ten Tournament.

Table 1: Seed probability matrix for the Big Ten Tournament based on a Monte Carlo simulation of the Big Ten season


As Table 1 shows, the most likely seed for each team generally parallels the preseason Kenpom rankings and it exactly matches the order of teams based on the regular season title odds presented in Part Two of this series. MSU is in second place on this list, behind Wisconsin, but the single outcome with the highest probability for the Spartans (shown in green) is actually for the MSU to claim the No. 1 seed.

A critical feature of the Big Ten Tournament is the number of byes that a team gets, which has a significant impact on a team’s odds to advance. In the current structure of the tournament, the top four seeds all receive a double bye and are immediately placed in the quarter finals. The teams seeded No. 5 through No. 10 receive a single bye and begin play on Thursday in the second round. The teams who finish the season as one of the bottom four seeds start in the first round on Wednesday. Table 2 below summarizes the odds for each team to finish in each of those three tiers.

Table 2: Odds for each Big Ten team to receive single or double bye in the Big Ten tournament.


Once again, Wisconsin has a clear advantage and has by far the best odds (72 percent) to receive one of the coveted double byes. The Spartans’ odds are essentially 50-50 to receive a single or double bye. Ohio State, Michigan, and Iowa all have very similar odds as MSU.

While seeding is important, the most important answer that we seek is which team will actually wind up cutting down the nets on Selection Sunday? Before this question can be answered, however, some assumptions need to be made regarding the actual seeds for each team.

One approach is to use the seed list shown above in Table 2. Once the seeds are set, it is straightforward to run a new simulation on the results of the Big Ten Tournament to generate the odds for each team to advance and eventually win the tournament. The results of this simulation are shown below in Table 3.

Table 3: Big Ten Tournament odds based on the simulation averaged seed order


As expected the odds also mirror the odds for each team to win the regular season title. Wisconsin still has the best odds, at 21 percent, which is a significant drop from the Badgers’ odds to win the regular season title (38 percent). As for the Spartans, the odds to win the Big Ten Tournament (16 percent) are just slightly lower than the odds to win the regular season title (18 percent). It should be noted that a big reason for the drop in odds for the Badgers is related to the fact that more than one team can share the regular season title, while the Big Ten Tournament title is all or nothing.

However, the tournament seed order shown in Tables 1 through 3 is essentially an average and does not necessarily represent any single outcome. It is also instructive to look at a more specific scenario. There are a total of 140 games on the Big Ten schedule, each of which has two possible outcomes. Therefore, there are a total of 1.4 x 10^42 (two to the power of 140) different possible season outcomes.

Of all of those outcomes, there is a single one that has the highest overall probability. This scenario is the one where the projected favorite wins all 140 conference games. The odds of this specific scenario is also ridiculously small, but it remains the most likely single outcome. In this case, the seeds and odds for the Big Ten Tournament are summarized below in Table 4.

Table 4: Big Ten Tournament odds based single most likely Big Ten scenario where all projected favorites win


In this scenario, Michigan and Wisconsin tie for first place in Big Ten play with a record of 14-6 and the Wolverines win the tie-breaker to claim the top seed. MSU finishes with a final record of 13-7 and in a tie with Ohio State, Rutgers, and Illinois. MSU wins the tiebreaker and claims the No. 3 seed.

However, a comparison of Table 4 and Table 3 show that the odds to actually win the Big Ten Tournament do not change much for the contenders. Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Michigan essentially all have the same odds in both scenarios. But, the odds do change significantly for Rutgers (3.7 percent to 9.3 percent), Ohio State (16.4 percent to 11.6 percent), and Iowa (9.2 percent to 7.7 percent).

But, these difference can be understood by comparing the seeds that each teams were assigned in each scenario. In the scenario of Table 3, Ohio State was the No. 3 seed while Iowa was the No. 5 seed, and Rutgers was the No. 8 seed. Clearly the Buckeyes’ odds are boosted by the double bye, while Rutgers’ odds suffer by drawing No. 1 seed Wisconsin in the quarterfinals.

But, in the scenario of Table 4, the specific tiebreakers in play push Rutgers up to the No. 4 seed which more than doubles the Scarlet Knights’ odds to win the tournament. Meanwhile, Ohio State falls to No. 5 and their odds drop by five percentage points. As for Iowa, a change from the No. 5 seed to the No. 8 seed costs the Hawkeyes 1.5 percentage points.

This particular thought experiment inspired another. In order to better understand the role of seed in the Big Ten Tournament, it is possible to simulate the odds for a team of fixed quality to win the Big Ten Tournament by arbitrarily assigning that team to all possible seeds from No. 1 to No. 14 and rerunning the simulation keeping the seed order of the other 13 teams fixed. I performed this simulation for MSU using the scenario shown in Table 3 as a base case. The results of this experiment are shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1: Odds for MSU to win the Big Ten Tournament if the Spartans are artificially seeded anywhere from No. 1 to No. 14 with all other teams fixed in the order shown in Table 3.

This figure highlights the importance of securing a top four seed in the Big Ten Tournament. MSU’s odds to the win the tournament are virtually identical for No. 1 to No. 3 seed and only drop slightly for the No. 4 seed.

However, the odds drop by at least five percentage points (from roughly 16 percent to 10 percent) once MSU falls to the No. 5 seed. The odds for the No. 6 seed are similar, but there is yet another drop of two percentage points for seeds No. 7 to No. 10, which makes sense as these seeds would line up against against the No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in the quarterfinals. This is also consistent with the changes observed for Ohio State, Rutgers, and Iowa in the two scenarios discussed above.

The odds for MSU as an No. 11 seed do not change much, as MSU would still be heavily favored to beat No. 14 seed Nebraska in the first round, but as the No. 12 to No. 14 seed, the odds to win the whole tournament fall by another two percentage point to roughly six percent.

Recall that in this contrived scenario, MSU is still the 11th best team in the country so the odds in Figure 1 reflect only the effect of seed position. Clearly, there is a major advantage to getting a top six and especially a top four seed in the Big Ten Tournament. Intuitively, this is pretty obvious, but know we can quantify it.

This concludes this particular study of Big Ten basketball prior to tip-off on Wednesday night. Fortunately the tools that I displayed in this series are not static. I can and will continue to simulate the results of the Big Ten season as more game are played and more data is accumulated. As always I will be here to do the math so you don’t have to. Until next time, enjoy, and Go Green.

It will be hard to ever forget my last memory of college basketball in 2020. It was the evening of Wednesday, March 11th. I turned on the TV to check out the action on the first day of the Big Ten tournament. While causally watching the action, it was impossible not to notice the news running along the ticker at the bottom. That evening Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert had tested positive for COVID-19, and as a result the NBA was shutting down, effective immediately. It was the first domino to fall in the world of sports in the global pandemic crisis.

The second domino was teetering on the sidelines in Indianapolis during the Big Ten Tournament first round game between Indiana and Nebraska. Cornhusker head coach Fred Hoiberg did not look well. He has pale and sweaty and was clearly exhibiting flu-like symptoms. The television crew commented on Hoiberg’s appearance. They seemed worried.

While the teams finished the game and Hoiberg soon tested negative for COVID, the remaining dominos were now in motion and could not be stopped. Within just 48 hours all major sports hit the pause button. By early Friday evening (the 13th, incidentally) the NCAA Tournament had been cancelled.

It is hard to explain the shear sense of grief and loss that I felt personally when the 2020 NCAA Tournament was cancelled. College basketball has always been my favorite sport and the those magical days in March are the most holy days on my personal sports calendar. When the cancellation was announced, the closest way to describe my emotional state is that it was akin to taking all of the Christmas presents from an 8-year old child, placing them into a pile in the front yard, setting them on fire, and then forcing the child to watch. It was brutal.

For a while, I truly believed that COVID-19 would blow over in a few weeks and that by the first of May, the idea of resurrecting the tournament might start to circulate. I am an optimist, after all. But now, over eight months have past, and we are still very much still in the midst of a global crisis.

But, just a few days ago, at long last the Big Ten finally announced the full conference schedule for all 14 member institutions. If I couple this news with some encouraging news about a potential COVID vaccine, and this seems like a true ray of light in a dark room. For me, this also provides an opportunity to brush off some of my favorite mathematical tools to analyze this schedule. Do some teams have an easier conference-schedule than others? If so, is it possible to quantify those differences? The answer to both questions is “yes.”

The tools that I use are similar to those that I have used recently in the analysis of the Big Ten football schedule, which is an exercise that I went through not once, not twice, but a full three times. For football, I have developed my own power rankings that I use to perform the analysis. For college basketball, I take a slightly easier route and simply use efficiency data summarized expertly by Ken Pomeroy.

Schedule Overview

Let’s begin by looking at an overview of the schedule. Each Big Ten team will play a total of 20 conference games. Table 1 below summarizes the entire Big Ten schedule.

Table 1: Overview of the entire Big Ten Men's Basketball schedule. For the single-play games, the cells in green are home games for the team in that row, while the cells in orange are road games.


In a conference with 14 total teams, this means that each team will play seven teams twice and the remaining six teams only once (three at home and three on the road). The teams that play each other twice contain the number two where the matrix intersects. For the single-play games, the cell contains the number one and is shaded green for the home team’s row and orange for the road team’s row.

For example, the 2020-21 schedule has MSU playing Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, and Nebraska all twice. MSU draws Wisconsin, Illinois, and Penn State only once, at home. MSU will face Minnesota, Maryland, and Northwestern only once, on the road.

Table 1 also contains the preseason adjusted efficiency margin data from kenpom.com. For those that may not be familiar with these values, they represent the projected scoring margin per 100 possessions that each team would expect to have if they played an average Division I team.

MSU’s preseason efficiency margin is 21.8, which means that if MSU were to play a game versus Montana (ranked No. 151 by Kenpom) on a neutral court in a game with 100 possessions, MSU would be favored to win by about 22 points. Also note that an average college basketball game is usually around 70 possessions, so that actual point spread would be around 15 points.

As Table 1 shows, Kenpom projects that the best teams in the Big Ten are Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan State, Iowa, Michigan, and Illinois, in that order. This is notably different that the preseason Big Ten media poll, which placed Illinois in the top spot, followed by Iowa, Michigan State, Rutgers, Michigan, and Ohio State.

In general, efficiency data is more quantitative than simple polls and generally correlates well to point spreads, which in turn correlate to win probabilities. Either way, Kenpom projects that the Big Ten will be very strong this year, with six team in the preseason top-20 and 10 teams in the top-30.

Strength of Schedule

A glance at Table 1 shows that not all schedules are created equally. The unbalanced schedule will naturally create a situation where some teams will have a slightly easier or harder schedule than others. For example, Wisconsin plays each of the projected bottom four teams in the conference (Maryland, Penn State, Northwestern, and Nebraska) twice. By contrast, MSU plays four of the bottom five teams in the conference only once. This would seem to give the Badgers a pretty significant advantage.

Along this train of thought, one way to attempt to quantify the relative schedule strength is to compare the Kenpom adjusted efficiency margin of the teams that each Big Ten teams plays only once. The higher this value, the easier the schedule. These values are shown along the bottom row of Table 1 and Figure 1 below compares the values in a bar chart.


Figure 1: Average Kenpom adjusted efficiency margins of the teams that each Big Ten teams only plays once

According to this analysis, Wisconsin does in fact have the easiest schedule in the conference, followed by Illinois, Purdue, and Maryland. MSU’s schedule ranks No. 9 using this method, while Iowa and Northwestern’s schedules rank as the most difficult.

As a first pass, this analysis is pretty good. However, there is really no physical meaning to the magnitude of the bars in Figure 1. Wisconsin looks to have an advantage, but how significant is it?

In my opinion, the best way to quantify the real difference in schedule strength in by using the concept of expected value. As I mentioned above, the efficiency margin data can be used to estimate point spreads and win probabilities. With this data, it is possible to estimate the expected number of wins that each Big Ten team is likely to accumulate by adding up the individual win probabilities for each game.

For example, if MSU were to be projected to have a 50 percent chance to win each of the 20 games on the schedule, MSU is most likely to win a total of 10 games (as 20 time 50 percent equals 10). If MSU were to have a 60 percent chance to win each game on the schedule, the number of expected win rises to 12.

Regarding the strength of schedule calculation, it is necessary to level the playing field. Naturally, Michigan State would be expected to win more games than Nebraska if both teams were to play identical schedules. This leveling can be accomplished by making the same expected value calculation as described above but by assuming that each Big Ten teams has a fixed adjusted efficiency margin and not their actual efficiency margin. In this case, I selected an adjusted efficiency margin equal to 19, which this year is equal to a team as good as Indiana, the Big Ten’s most average team.

Figure 2 summarizes the results of this calculation for each Big Ten team. In effect, this calculation is the number of expected wins for all fourteen schedules if each schedule were played by the Hoosiers.


Figure 2: Big Ten strengths of schedule, based on normalized expected win totals

Once again, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Purdue emerge with the top two easiest schedules in the conference, while Iowa, Nebraska, and Northwestern are bringing up the rear. However, in this case both Michigan (ranked No. 4) and MSU (ranked No. 6) do a bit better. For the Spartans, the fact that both Illinois and Wisconsin must come to Breslin Center is likely an important factor.

The main advantage of the expected value based strength of schedule method is that the numerical values have a physical meaning. In this case, Wisconsin’s schedule is about a quarter of a win easier than the Illini’s next easiest schedule. Wisconsin’s schedule is also a half-win easier than MSU’s schedule.

The average Big Ten strength of schedule is just slightly over 10.5 wins. MSU’s schedule is less than a tenth of a win easier than average. The Wolverines have a slightly easier schedule than MSU, but only by 0.13 wins over 20 games, which is a small difference.

Of the contenders, Iowa clearly drew the short straw. The Hawkeyes’ schedule is a quarter win harder than MSU’s schedule and three-quarters of a win harder than Wisconsin’s schedule. That could very well wind up being the difference between hanging a banner in early March or not.

I believe that Figure 2 gives the most quantitatively accurate view of the relative strengths of each Big Ten team’s schedule. However, it is noteworthy that teams with a higher Kenpom ranking (like Wisconsin and Illinois) tend to have an easier schedule than teams like Nebraska and Northwestern. But, this is reasonable as (for example) Nebraska certainly does suffer from not being able to play a team as bad as Nebraska once or twice in a season.

In order to try to cancel out for this effect, I make a small adjustment to the strength of schedule calculation. I select the most average Big Ten team (in this case, Indiana) and I replace Indiana’s adjusted efficient margin with the efficiency margin of the team in question.

For example, for MSU’s adjusted strength of schedule, I calculate the total number of expected wins using an average efficiency margin of 19.0 for MSU AND I replace Indiana’s efficiency margin with MSU’s actual efficiency margin. I am not sure that this method is perfect, but it does at least partially correct for the strength or weakness of the team in question. Figure 3 gives the result of this calculation.


Figure 3: Big Ten strengths of schedule, based on normalized expected win totals and correcting for the strength of the team in question

By definition, this calculation will drive teams closer to the average, so it is no surprise that the total range of values has decreased. That said, the order of the teams does not change that much, likely because the Big Ten has so many teams ranked in the No. 10 to No. 30 range of Kenpom.

In the adjusted calculation, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue still have the three easiest schedules, while Nebraska, Iowa, and Northwestern all have the most difficult schedules. As for MSU, this calculation moves the Spartans’ strength of schedule from average to the fifth most difficult.

While the strength of schedule data is interesting, what does this tell us about the odds for each team to actually win the conference? How many wins can we expect in East Lansing this year? Answering those question will be the focus of my next installment of this three-part series. Stay tuned.

No football this weekend, no Pre-Snap Read, no MSU basketball, no high school playoffs.

So I majored in Michigan State hockey a little bit over the last couple of days.

I won't be able to give this much attention to Michigan State hockey for the next few weekend series, but it was good to get a feel for this team in the opening series of the year.


Hit this link for the story with photos:




The story without photos is below:




MSU's 2-0 victory over Arizona State - What It Means

By Jim Comparoni
• SpartanMag Publisher


East Lansing, Mich. - Danton Cole wanted a winning level improvement between Game One and Game Two, and that’s exactly what he got - plus a hot goalie.

Drew DeRidder turned away 30 shots as Michigan State beat Arizona State 2-0, Friday night at Munn Ice Arena. It was the first career shutout for DeRidder, a junior from Fenton.

Michigan State improved to 1-0-1. Arizona State, which earned a berth in the NCAA Tournament two years ago and would have been in last year if the tournament hadn’t been canceled, fell to 0-3-1.

Junior center Mitchell Mattson netted the first goal of his career to give Michigan State a 1-0 lead with 12:15 left in the first period. Senior Adam Goodsir and freshman Kyle Haskins assisted.

Senior Mitch Lewandowski, who ranks No. 2 in the nation in career goals among active players, gave Michigan State an important insurance goal with 7:32 left in the game. Sophomore Nicolas Müller and freshman Kristof Papp assisted.

“We talked about getting a little better at some things night-over-night, and I thought a lot of things were,” said MSU’s fourth-year head coach. “We talked about cleaning up the neutral zone and I thought we did a lot better job there.

“Energy throughout the end of the game was better. You kind of have to get those game legs. We hadn’t had that type of thing in about eight months. That was a lot better.

“We drove the net, did better in the offensive zone.

“Everything is positive. We’ll take a little break tomorrow but we’ve got a sign heading out to the rink that says, ‘Outwork yesterday.’ That can’t change.

“Hey, we feel good about this, but we’re moving on. We’ve got some things to work on. We’ve got a tough road between now and Christmas. But I’m excited. I like what I saw. I like their reaction tonight based on how we played last night.”


WHAT IT MEANS

For DeRidder: The Michigan State goaltender is being pushed for the starting job by freshman Pierce Charleson.

DeRidder, a product of the U.S. National Team Development Program, split starting duty as a freshman two years ago, but started only four games last year. He needed to have a good series, and he responded by allowing only one goal in two games.

“He was outstanding,” Cole said. “I’m real happy for him. He’s a battler. He was ticked off about giving up one late last night and he was determined not to do that tonight.”


For Mattson: The 6-foot-4 junior, from Grand Rapids, Minn., appears to be maturing into his big frame.

Although he was a fifth round draft pick by the Calgary Flames four years ago, he has been slow to gain traction at the college level.

He played in only 14 games as a freshman. Last year, he played in each of the last 16 games, eventually earning a regular role on the fourth line.

On Friday, as the fourth-line center, he finished a gritty play and pass from Goodsir in front of the net to give Michigan State a 1-0 lead in the first period.

“There’s a guy that scored a lot of goals before he got here,” Cole said. “It’s his junior year, he gets his first one. That can mean a lot to a guy and give you a little bit of confidence.”

“It’s nice to get the monkey off the back for sure,” Mattson said. “I hope to keep building. If I can score here and there, that’s great but I just want to help our team and hopefully our line will continue to build trust from coach.”


For Lewandowski: The senior winger from Clarkston had 19 goals as a freshman, 16 as a sophomore but just eight last year while coming back from off-season surgery (and learning to play without super-feeder Taro Hirose).

“I really liked Lewie all weekend, and I was glad he got one, just to get back,” Cole said. “He’s a goal scorer.”

For Papp: The freshman from Hungary (by way of Los Angeles and then suburban Detroit) made an aggressive play at the blue line to create a 3-on-2 with 7:32 left in the game.

He looked for his own shot, fired it, leading to a fat rebound for Lewandowski, who netted the insurance goal.

Cole says Papp has a skill level that few, if any, other players on the team possess. We didn’t see it on Thursday night, but Papp showed a little more of that ceiling in his second career college game.

“I just didn’t think he was hard enough on pucks last night,” Cole said. “I think too many got under his stick. If it was a 50-50 puck, he wasn’t getting it.

“So we had a little video with him this afternoon about four or five different situations where we said, ‘Hey, this is adult hockey, here. You have to be hard on those pucks.’

“He’s good. He knows where to go. He’s in the right spots. For a European, everybody thinks those guys might be pass-first, but that kid likes to shoot the puck, which is good.”

Papp centers the No. 2 line, with Lewandowski and Nicolas Müller as his wings.

“But he battled on the boards,” Cole said of Papp. “Last night, I don’t think he would have come out with that puck (which led to the 3-on-2). You have to arrive quickly and with a little ill humor. He came out of that pile with the puck, accelerated, got to the top of the circles, didn’t even look to pass, and he let it rip. I liked that.”


For The Freshmen: On Thursday, freshman A.J. Hodges wheeled pretty good as the right winger on the No. 1 line

On Friday, Papp and Haskins provided a spark.

Last year, MSU’s three freshmen (Nodler, Müller, Jagger Joshua) were lean with their productivity. It’s looking like this year’s rookies will have a bigger impact - and the sophomores have improved. It adds up to a pretty good youth movement on this team.

“We have three freshmen in some pretty important places but they’ve got some pop,” Cole said. “Kristof and Hodges, they’re going to get some stuff done before the end of the year.

“And we’re just scratching the surface with (freshman defenseman) Nash Nienhuis. When he gets a feel and starts jumping through the neutral zone we’ll get some more of that.

“They’ll have their high spots, their low spots but those guys are going to get ice and they’re going to be a big part of it.”


For The Fourth Line: Cole wants more depth, more balance. The fourth line can go a long way toward providing it.

“I thought that line struggled a bit last night but I they found their sea legs a little bit tonight,” Cole said.

Mattson centered the line for the last half of last year. He’s a better version of himself this year.

Friday, freshman Haskins (5-10, 190, Huntington, Vt.) saw limited minutes as the 19th skater on Thursday. On Friday, he played regularly as the right winger on the fourth line. He made a difference.

“Hask was really driving today,” Cole said. “He played with speed, played on the other side of the D. He’s going to be able to do that well for us.”

On Mattson’s goal, Haskins drove hard into the zone, dumped it behind the goal. Goodsir won the battle behind the goal and fed Mattson out front.

“Huge goal,” Cole said. “All three of those guys stepped it up for us and that was important.”

Michigan State will play at Ohio State next Saturday and Sunday, with game time and TV to be announced.

AJ Kirk from Columbus, OH loves MSU. Even with offers from Ohio State and Notre Dame, I think he may commit to MSU soon.

Spartans tie Arizona State, 1-1; Comp's 4 Takeaways



Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com

East Lansing, Mich. - Michigan State semi-enjoyed an old school tie, Thursday in the hockey season opener against Arizona State in a new-normal environment.

In a pandemic-induced empty Munn Ice Arena, the only sounds after each team’s goal in a 1-1 tie were the screams and shouts of teammates on the ice and from the bench. That made it feel a little bit like the youth hockey days for some of these guys, especially MSU’s Christian Krygier, who scored his first goal since juniors.

Five minutes of three-on-three overtime netted no goals and no great scoring chances.

With Arizona State playing as a Big Ten affiliate member this season, but not a full-fledged conference team, this game didn’t go to the Big Ten’s usual shootout stage to determine a winner.

Krygier gave Michigan State a 1-0 lead early in the second period. It was the first goal of his college career.

Arizona State tied the game with 15:46 left in regulation when Boston College transfer Chris Grando beat Michigan State goaltender Drew DeRidder after a brief lapse by Spartan defensemen following broken coverage in the corner.

Arizona State (0-2-1) lost two games at Michigan last weekend and played with desperation in the third period when trailing. At about that time, Michigan State (0-0-1) lacked mid-season gas, said head coach Danton Cole.


“I thought (our legs) were good in the first and second,” Cole said. “I thought in the third, they looked a little like practice legs at the end there. They (ASU) had a little more jump.

“I thought we defended well, but boy when you keep defending from those situations, that’s when a goal like that gets scored (by Grando). You get beat off the wall and guys don’t get back to the slot.

“It wasn’t much different than we thought it would be. But I liked the start, I liked what we did early. Coach Mason used to say, hey when the blood stops flowing to the brain, that’s when you start making mistakes. And I think you saw a little bit of that in the third.

“That’s something that will come around and I expect that to be better tomorrow.

“Overall, (we had) way more positives and lots of stuff to build on.”

Michigan State will face ASU in game two of the two-game series at 6 p.m. on Friday at Munn Ice Arena (Big Ten Plus).



FOUR TAKEAWAYS

1. Five of MSU’s 19 skaters were freshmen.

Michigan State had a freshman center on the No. 1 line (Kristof Papp) and a freshman winter on the No. 2 line (A.J. Hodges).

Michigan State played two freshmen defensemen (Nash Nienhuis and Aiden Gallacher), and had a fourth-line forward (Kyle Haskins).

Michigan State has nine freshmen this year, including a pair of back-up goalies. That’s a big class, considering the Spartans had only three freshmen last year.

“There’s some nerves and things you have to shake out,” said sophomore Josh Nodler, who assisted on Krygier’s goal. “But they’ll learn quickly. There’s a lot of skill and smart players that we’ve got as freshmen.”

Hodges (6-0, 184, RW, Littleton, Colo.) seemed the most comfortable of the rookies.

He played on the No. 2 line with Nodler and Bemidji State graduate transfer Charlie Combs.

“He did a nice job with that line,” Cole said. “He distributes the puck and puts them on net. I think he’s going to make more plays offensively as it goes along and he understands where he has time and where things are created out there. He’s going to be fine.”


2. Krygier Was Feeling It

Krygier is a tough, responsible, stay-at-home defenseman.

“For a guy like me, I don’t score much,” said Krygier (6-2, 185, Jr., Novi). “I don’t know if I’ve scored a goal in the last three or four years.”

He won’t forget this one.

“It’s kind of like, ‘Finally,’” he said. “You remember doing it as a kid. Obviously scoring is so much fun. The puck went in, and I went into the corner and I was just pumped.”

Krygier jumped out of character a bit in racing with the puck toward the net prior to his goal. He was turned away by traffic. But then, as Nodler and Combs worked a give-and-go in the corner, Krygier said to himself, “as long as I have my speed up, I might as well wheel in again.”

Nodler worked behind the net and saw Krygier heading down the slot.

“I saw Nods running around the net. We work on it a lot in practice, hitting that D coming down. So I just followed my route, Nods gave it to me, and made contact with it and it went in.”


3. Confidence Is Up

The Spartans feel they let a victory slip away, but are optimistic they’ll see improvement in Game Two.

“I thought we outplayed them about 75 percent of the game,” Krygier said. “And the times that they out-played us, they worked us pretty well but I think the majority of the time we were in control and that was our game to lose.”

Michigan State outshot ASU 13-7 in the first period but just 26-23 for the game.

“On the defensive side, not bad. Neutral zone was okay, but our transitional defense, I didn’t think our last two forwards did a very good job and I think we missed a lot of opportunities of shutting down some of their rushes in transition. We always talk about speed, then read. I think we were looking around to see what was happening, and then it’s a little too late. But that’s something that guys will learn.

“We’ll tighten those up tomorrow. The guys’ legs will be a little bit better in the second game, just from … we haven’t done this in eight months. It’s just different.”


4. DeRidder Was Solid

DeRidder made 22 saves and came up big a handful of times.

DeRidder (5-11, 175, Fenton) split duty somewhat evenly with John Lethemon two years ago. Last year, Lethemon became the every-day goalie and DeRidder saw action in only four games.

This year marks the first time DeRidder has been the undisputed No. 1 goalie. That status can change in a hurry in this sport. It’s not likely to change after this game.

“I thought Drew did real well,” Cole said. “He bailed us out when he needed to. He probably wants one more save, but that (goal) is not on him. He played a real strong game, got us some whistles when we needed it, took care of his rebounds. He was pretty tidy.”

Easy question

I hope you get something out of it. Maybe I'll pen a DotComp on Sunday after detoxing from this game a little bit.

The Pre-Snap Read: Michigan State v Indiana

By Jim Comparoni
SpartanMag.com

East Lansing, Mich. - Indiana is on the cusp of a generational type of season. But can the Hoosiers handle it? If they can, then they’ll likely handle Michigan State.

That’s what everyone is expecting. But this has been a season of blown-up expectations. Indiana is riding the positive side of that phenomenon with a 3-0 record. For now, and with good reason to believe they can keep it up.

Indiana beat Michigan for the first time since 1987.

Indiana was 1-22 all-time against Penn State prior to upsetting the Nittany Lions in the season opener.

Their victory over No. 8 Penn State in the opener was Indiana’s first win over a Top 10 team in 33 years.

Now the No. 10-ranked Hoosiers are ranked in the Top 10 for the first time since 1969. We’ll see if they can handle it. Michigan State, as a program, has a penchant for knocking off Top 10 teams.

Indiana plays Ohio State next week. The Michigan State game, on paper, would look like a potential sandwich letdown game for the Hoosiers.

Indiana coach Tom Allen is trying to motivate against that possibility by rallying his team to claim the Old Brass Spittoon, a trophy the Hoosiers haven’t possessed in Allen’s four years as head coach.

Also, Allen is smartly telling his team that they owe Michigan State one. Indiana felt they were ripped off by a questionable penalty late in the Michigan State game last year.

“We have a grudge against Michigan State,” said offensive lineman Caleb Jones. “We should have won last year.”

Those quotes are likely straight from the coach’s mouth. That’s fine. Allen is smart. He respects this challenge at Michigan State and wants to use any kind of emotional or psychological button he can find for a program that is processing heights it hasn’t experienced in generations, with the potential to experience more - especially if they don’t fall prey to this sandwich game.

THE LATEST ON MSU:

Michigan State is in correction mode after last week’s 49-7 loss at Iowa.

Gap fits in run defense were a correctable problem last week. But it was a problem against Rutgers as well.

I asked coach Mel Tucker about linebacker play, gap fits and communication on Tuesday. Here is that exchange, followed by a SpartanMag Film Room looking at some of the things that need to be corrected:

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media

The Hawkeyes didn’t enjoy a physicality advantage on every single snap last week, but they did on enough of them to help assemble a dominant, well-schemed performance.

Michigan State isn’t going to be a physical juggernaut this year. Michigan State is physical enough at defensive tackle, and occasionally at d-end. But things could wear down at d-end. And Michigan State isn’t as physical as it needs to be at TE and with WR blocking in order to help make the run game go.

MSU’s interior run blocking last week was much better than it was against Rutgers, and about the same as it was against Michigan. Michigan State averaged 3.0 yards per tailback carry last week against the best per-play statistical defense in the Big Ten. Tucker charted 15 “efficient” run plays against Iowa. Those aren’t chunk plays, but they are plays that netted at least three yards with no missed blocking assignments. That’s useful, if other areas of the team are holding water. Last week, they weren’t.

But I saw some good moments in combo blocking last week with Samac and his offensive guards.

Pass protection was much worse last week than it had been in the previous two weeks when it actually served as a team strength.

Offensive guards Matt Carrick and JD Duplain were each beaten on the pass rush on the first two pocket pass attempts of the day. RT Kevin Jarvis was also beaten on the second pocket pass attempt of the day. That was an unsettling beginning for Rocky Lombardi and he never got settled the rest of the day, with only a pair of deep shot completions aiding his stats.

Tucker offered some coachspeak this week, saying they needed to correct the errors and build on the positives. There were some positives. There was a pulse with the run blocking, although Michigan State wasted some RB carries on Anthony Williams and Brandon Wright. Those guys might have some ability but Williams failed to hit the hole correctly on his first carry of the season. He has potential, but that was a waste. It’s good to get him on the field and give him a shot, make a mistake and learn from it. But if Michigan State is going to hang in this game against Indiana, the Spartans can’t have empty carries from anyone. The margin for error is small due to MSU’s mediocre physical ability, yet Michigan State makes too many of them at various positions. That mix will get you beat every week in the Big Ten.

Michigan State d-tackle Naquan Jones was not good enough against double-team blocking last week. He was average against Rutgers, good against Michigan, and then went back to average, or less, last week. They need him to be a bell cow. He’s capable but I’m wondering about his level of determination.

Meanwhile, Jacob Slade is solid at the other DT, and Jalen Hunt is coming along nicely with some quickness when one-gapping. And Dashaun Mallory showed last week that he is more than just a two-gap stuffer. He can also get his 340-pound frame moving a little bit, to cross face and penetrate, or move with his gap on a fast outside zone play. He showed something.

INDIANA’S RESULTS

Indiana is 8-2 in its last 10 Big Ten games.

This season:

Indiana 37, Rutgers 21
Indiana 38, Michigan 21
Indiana 36, Penn State 35 (OT)

* Indiana’s offense looked devastating in the first quarter against Michigan, going up 14-7 after its first two possessions, with an array of pass catching threats and a dangerous QB. Indiana led 24-7 at halftime and Pennix had led the offense to more than 300 yards in the first half.

* The most impressive thing from Indiana on that day might have been holding Michigan to a net of 13 yards rushing on 18 carries.

And Indiana did it mainly by keeping two safeties deep as part of IU’s base defense. In other words, IU stopped the run with a standard number in the box. They didn’t set out to stop the run by outnumbering it. They did it with firm two-gapping on the d-line and linebackers who make good reads behind it, and occasionally filled with effective run blitzes.

McFadden, Indiana’s inside linebacker who reminds me a little of Riley Bullough, is adept at making backfield reads while playing behind a two-gapping d-line. That’s the level of insticts and understanding that Noah Harvey needs to harness. (As for Bullough, he never had to make reads behind two-gapping defensive linemen because Michigan State was solely a one-gapping system back then. Michigan State these days runs a combination of one-gapping and two-gapping, which can be very effective, but tasks LBs with making good, smart, quick, somewhat instinctive reads).

FINAL ANALYSIS FIRST: Michigan State vs Indiana

* I don’t know if Indiana is a Top 10 team, but the Hoosiers are a good, somewhat deep, explosive, correct football team. They are so correct and spirited that it’s a reminder of how difficult it is to get good in this league if you have to stay above teams like Indiana, and how quickly a Michigan, Nebraska or Penn State (or Michigan State) can sink.

* We all know about Indiana QB Michael Pennix by now. But I’m surprised by how solid Indiana’s defensive interior and entire front seven is. They’ve taken on a sturdiness in there somewhat similar to Dantonio’s early years at Michigan State.

* Indiana’s WRs are terrific mix of three talented pass catches, plus a good tight end.

* Indiana has big RBs who can do their job well, and can move the pile but aren’t overly explosive.

* Indiana’s o-line is good enough in run blocking but not nearly the test Michigan State faced last week in this department, and not as good as Michigan was supposed to be on the ground.

Indiana’s pass protection was awful late in the Penn State game but has improved nicely since then and it wasn’t a problem against Michigan, especially after Aidan Hutchinson went down early in the game with an injury. Indiana did a decent job on Kwity Paye. Indiana didn’t have to double-team him in the first half. I didn’t get a chance to chart what they did to him in the second half (that would have required watching the game for a third time. I was only after to watch it two and a half times).

* Indiana is No. 5 in the Big Ten in total defense. I kind of expected that ranking to be higher. I haven’t seen teams roll up much of anything on them.

Total defense rankings in the Big Ten:

1. Wisconsin
2. Northwestern (wait, wut?)
3. Iowa
4. Ohio State
5. Indiana
6. Michigan State

Rankings in yards allowed per play (which is the best measurement of team defense):

1. Iowa
2. Northwestern
3. Wisconsin
4. Michigan State
5. Indiana
6. Michigan
7. Ohio State

* Indiana is uncommon in how many players the Hoosiers use on defense. They play second-stringers at almost every position, and some third-stringers. Tucker noted that they play 17 different players in the front seven. Their level of recruiting evaluation and player development is obviously outstanding.

* Indiana runs multiple coverages, from man-free to zone blitzes, and disguise them well. Tackle well. They disguise their blitzes well at pre-snap and disguise their zone drops.

* Indiana forced three takeaways against PSU and Rutgers and two against Michigan.

* They take smart, direct, fast, downhill angles to the ball or to their leverage point. I noticed this last year and wrote about it in the Pre-Snap Read. They are better at it this year and tackling better.

Their back seven players are good at taking on blocks, whether they’re blowing up a block or weaseling around them.

They arrive with hard contact at the ball carrier or at the point of attack blocker.

They are well-coached to know where to go, and well-coached in the quickness with which they flow and the technique and anger when they get there.

They might not be loaded with NFL guys on defense, but they have guys buzzing around with full-tilt postures.

Tom Allen is a defensive coach first, and it shows in these guys. The physical same-pageness they play with is reminiscent of Dantonio’s early years, although the scheme is much different as Indiana is more multiple and they play a 4-2-5. (Actually it’s a 3-3-5 with the defensive end playing as a stand-up edge).

* They don’t have good pass rushing defensive linemen. But they blitz CBs and slot CBs with regularity, much more than most teams. They also blitz LBs regularly.

Indiana does get to the QB, but they do it with blitzers or coverage pressure, not from pure excellent defensive line pass rushers.

If you can pick up their blitzes, and have good QB discretion as to when to get rid of the ball safely and punt, and occasionally make Indiana pay for blitzes, then they can be had. But it will take safe, savvy, expert play from the QB. Indiana isn’t terrifying on defense, they’re just kind of pesky, correct and opportunistic.

You don’t have to be John Elway to move the ball on them. But you have to be better than Penn State’s Clifford, Michigan’s Milton or Rutgers’ Vedral. Milton did pretty well against them. Clifford lesser. Vedral even less. All of them turned it over.

PSU’s Clifford: 238 yards (24 of 35, 3 TDs, 2 INTs).

RU’s Vedral: 130 yards passing (21 of 34, 2 TDs, 3 INTs)

UM’s Milton: 344 yards passing (18 of 34, 3 TDs, 2 INTs)


KEY AREA

* Avoid turnover. As always. This is always an obvious key, but even more so with these two teams. Michigan State has been prone to turning it over and Indiana has been very good at forcing them.

Indiana doesn’t have a great pass rush. They have good, tricky coverages and ball-hawking DBs. If things begin to go sour for Rocky Lombardi, he needs to avoid last week’s temptation of trying to force a play. Kirk Cousins had the same problem as a sophomore and junior.

KEY MATCHUP

I would worry about Indiana WR Whop Philyor against MSU’s slot coverage.

Philyor is Indiana’s favorite receiver. He’s a possession-plus guy, meaning he can give you possession routes and grabs but also has the plus ability to put a double move on you and go deep.

He almost always lines up in the slot.

MSU’s slot defender was supposed to be Shakur Brown. Brown isn’t great, but he’s pretty good whether manning up or getting some bracket help.

But Brown had to play wide cornerback last week because Chris Jackson was out with an undisclosed injury.

With Jackson out and Brown replacing him, Michigan State started sophomore Julian Barnett in the slot. Barnett played 13 snaps, and true freshman played 14 snaps at that position.

Due to Iowa’s size, physicality and formations, Michigan State mostly went with big safety Michael Dowell as the fifth DB. He played 53 snaps.

But if Jackson can’t play, it will be interesting to see who and what Michigan State goes with in the slot vs Philyor.

Dowell is coming along nicely, and is pretty good against the run. But at 215 pounds, he isn’t the type of guy who can play slot corner against a sleek WR like Philyor.

Barnett has the talent to do it but is still gaining the know-how. Grose is somewhere in between. And Davion Williams was absent last week after serving as a second-string CB in the season opener.

If Jackson can’t play, school might be in session in the slot area.


INDIANA: THE MACRO

Head coach Tom Allen was defensive coordinator at Indiana in 2016, under Kevin Wilson. He took over as head coach when Wilson was fired due to improper harshness with players, or something like that.

Allen, an Indiana native, was linebackers coach at Ole Miss, and spent one year as defensive coordinator at South Florida before being hired by Wilson to become DC and Indiana in 2016.

* Allen handled the defense at Indiana for his first two years. He gave up daily control of the defense last year. Tackling was an issue early last season, but not anymore.

Vs. Penn State:

* PSU turned it over 3 times in the first half, including an INT returned inside the 5-yard line, and a fumble at the IU 6-yard line.
* Indiana took a 17-7 lead after a Jamar Johnson INT return inside the 10-yard line. RB Scott rammed it on on two inside zone runs.

* PSU had nine returning starters from an offense that ranked No. 2 in the Big Ten in scoring offense last year at 36 points per game. PSU out-gained Indiana 488-211, but the 14-point swing on those two turnovers were costly.

* Indiana had only 102 yards of total offense through the third quarter, but led 17-14.

* Pennix was just 7-of-14 for 60 yards through the 3Q against PSU.

* With PSU leading 21-20 with 1:42 to go, Indiana purposefully allowed PSU to score an untouched 9-yard TD run. That was Indiana’s only chance to win - let PSU score, get the ball back, score a TD, go for two, force overtime. And that’s exactly what IU did.

* Indiana’s defense had been pretty much error-free until a deep middle bust resulted in a 60-yard TD pass for PSU gave PSU a 21-20 lead with 2:00 to play. Second-string safety Juwan Burgess was beaten in zone coverage on the play, biting Indiana for perhaps playing too many reserves. Burgess played outside technique and allowed a fat window for the post route.


* Prior to Indiana’s game-tying drive in the last two minutes, the Hoosier had just 87 yards in the first half and 46 in the second.

* Pennix won the game with a dive to the pylon on a two-point conversion. I think the call should have been reversed. Looked to me like the ball hit the grass out of bounds just before the ball got to the pylon. Penn State should have been awarded the victory.


vs Rutgers:

Indiana’s defense was excellent for the first three quarters. The offense was sleepy, but eventually woke up in time to take over.

* Indiana started slow and trailed 7-6 with 6:00 to go in the 1H when Indiana forced a turnover at the Rutgers 5-yard line. On that play, blitzing LB Cam Jones hit the QB’s arm, causing a pass attempt to flutter high. Second-string d-end Jon King intercepted it. Rutgers scored three plays later to go up 13-7.

* Indiana then intercepted a Rutgers pass on Rutgers’ next play from scrimmage, giving Indiana another short field at the Scarlet Knights’ 28-yard line. Indiana was in the end zone a few plays later.

Those two turnover-induced TD drives of 5 and 28 yards turned a 7-6 deficit into a 20-7 Indiana halftime lead.

Indiana controlled the 2H, beginning with a LB McFadden INT on a fourth down roll out pass. Then Indiana went deep on its first offensive play of the 2H, hooking up with Philyor on a deep post. A facemask penalty stalled things and IU had to kick a field goal, but led 23-7 and controlled it the rest of the way.

At the line of scrimmage: Indiana netted 109 yards rushing against Rutgers (rushed for 145 but had some losses).

Rutgers netted 121 yards rushing (gained 166).

The Takeaway: Indiana hasn’t been as dominant this year as you might have thought if you only watched their game against Michigan. Indiana has been good, occasionally explosive, and consistent on defense, especially in the art of forcing turnovers.

The biggest problem is the idea that Pennix might have hit a new gear last week. He seems to be improving. He was already pretty good. If he indeed has gone from good to very good, then this team could go with him.

INDIANA OFFENSE

* Indiana has had three different offensive coordinators in three years.

* This year, former Michigan walk-on QB Nick Sheridan, the son of former Michigan State assistant coach Mike Sheridan, is Indiana’s offensive coordinator. Nick was a Pop Warner legend of sorts in the Okemos area back during the Saban years when Sheridan was briefly an Michigan State assistant. Sheridan went on to coach at Notre Dame, Michigan, the NFL and other places.

* Sheridan replaces Kalen DeBoer, who left to become head coach at Fresno State.

* I haven’t seen Indiana operate at fast tempo. They don’t huddle, but they don’t hurry. They are a check-with-me system.

Lots of pistol. Some zone read, but not much in the way of QB keepers. Pennix can run, but they don’t ask him to do it much.

They run the inside zone, like most teams these days. I didn’t see any gap plays, or pin-and-pulls, or pulling linemen, or outside zones for that matter. Their run game is very much a one-flavor team. Inside zones.

Their pass game is lethal, due to the talent. Pennix has a great arm and is showing good ability to make reads and decisions. He has three excellent WRs.

He and Sheridan get the TE involved nicely. And he’s a good TE, Hendershot.

In terms of unique characteristics, Indiana will put three WRs to the short side of the field more often than most teams. OSU has done this as well over the years. I haven’t seen it be especially problematic for an opponent, but it causes for interesting traffic copping for the defense to the short side when they do that.

MICRO: THE PERSONNEL

QB 9 MICHAEL PENNIX (6-3, 218, R-Fr., Tampa, Fla.).
* Four-star recruit, ranked No. 55 in Florida by Rivals.com.
* Also visited FSU and South Florida. Visited all three in December of his senior year.
* Offers from Oregon, Tennessee and others.

Tucker called Michael Pennix “a difference-maker at QB.”

Pennix is averaging 250 yards passing per game, 59 pct, 7 TDs 1 INT.

* Indiana is 8-1 with Pennix as a starter, with the lone loss being last year at Michigan State.

* The scary thing for Michigan State about Pennix is that he appears to be improving. He wasn’t great against Penn State or Rutgers. He started slow against both teams, and was frigid against PSU, missing a couple of potential TD passes.

* I felt Pennix threw more catchable short passes last week against Michigan than he did in the first two games. The short passes to the flat got him into a rhythm and softened up the UM defense. In the first two games, he often put too much heat on the ball, or threw too sharply and had some drops.

* But he was outstanding against Michigan: 30 of 50 for 342 yards with 3 TDs, 0 INTs. He was precise, accurate and showed an electric arm. He made good reads, and the offensive system presented him with open choices.

* He’s good at firing into the cover-two hole, especially on the short side. He has plenty of arm to do it from the field, but when he sees a cover-two window to the short side, he has the laser to drill it over the squat corner and outside the safety. The arm strength allows it to get there before the safety can close over the top.

* Against PSU, Pennix was just 7 of 14 for 60 yards through the 3Q against PSU. He finished 19 of 36 for 170 with 1 TD and 1 INT.

+ They don’t feature him as a runner, but he can do it. Had a 25-yard QB draw on third down against Rutgers in the 1H and looked good doing it, calling his own number when the seas parted.

* For a guy with good mobility, they don’t ask him to boot and throw on the run very much. He looked pretty good on a half roll pass to Philyor on a slot WR drag for about 15 against Rutgers, but they don’t do that much.

++ Really nice 15-yard dart to WR Fryfogle on a corner route into the cover-two window as part of a high-low smash concept. Short side pass, good read, threw a rope.

- Missed Fryfogle in the 2Q vs PSU on a switch route to the flag, jammed him with the throw to the inside shoulder on the turn.

- INT in the 3Q vs PSU, got a little pressure from a d-end beating his left tackle. Stared down the receiver on a 25 yard hook.

* Had a streak of 20 straight completions against Michigan State last year.

INJURY HISTORY

* Pennix played in three games as a true freshman two years ago but went down with an ACL.

* Last year, he went 5-1 as a starter but then went out with a shoulder injury.

- on third-and-three vs a PSU blitz, overthrew Philyor on a deep slot fade. He was open.

+ Was having a mediocre day through three quarters against PSU, but then ripped a 15-yard out to the wide side of the field, outside the numbers, on a rope on third-and-eight against cover four. He didn’t have much of a window, but he drilled it.

* Makes good intermediate reads, will zip the 15-yard dig against zones.

HOW DO YOU CONTAIN HIM: Penn State had good moments when the pass rush was getting home - especially early in the fourth quarter. Michigan State doesn’t have pass rushers like Penn State.

The problems Indiana had in pass protection at left tackle didn’t resurface in the last two games, even against Michigan.

* I think the plan will be similar to the Michigan game: How to contain him with a myriad of coverages and some occasional pressure. However, he is much better at making reads than UM’s Milton. And his WRs are better than Milton’s. His pass protection is potentially worse.

You have to hope you can disguise your coverages, and get home on some pressures and then hope that he’s erratic with his accuracy the way he was at times against PSU and (to a lesser extent) against Rutgers.

But if he has time, and he’s on, he can throw for 350 yards against good coverages with these receivers.

WIDE RECEIVERS

The Skinny: An excellent trio, with a mix of quickness, size, intermediate talent and some deep-ball explosiveness, and circus-catch hands.


1 WR WHOP PHILYOR (5-11, 180, Sr., Tampa)
* Was a two-star recruit by Rivals.com, ranked No. 145 in Florida by ESPN.
* Nick-named “Whop” because he liked Whoppers at Burger King as a kid .
21 receptions, averaging 7 catches per game
* Had more than 1,000 yards receiving last year, just the seventh in Indiana history to do that.
* Accelerates quickly on his release moves when he decides to hit the gas.
* They use him almost exclusively in the slot.
* Has quick feet in getting into his route through the first 10 yards, quick pedals. Reminds me of a faster version of Mill Coleman.

WR 3 TY FRYFOGLE (6-2, 214, Sr., Lucedale, Miss.)
* Two-star recruit with offers from Ole Miss and Idaho. Was ranked No. 41 in Mississippi.
++ Had a pair of terrific circus catches against UM’s CB Gray last week as part of IU’s second TD drive.
+ 20-yard gain on slot fade to the back shoulder vs press man.

* 13 catches on the year.
* Last year, had 131 yards receiving vs PSU.

WR 13 MILES MARSHALL, 6-4, 208, Soph. from Ga., 7 catches
* 5.6 three-star recruit, No. 90 in Georgia. Summer commitment had offers from Purdue, Virginia, Vanderbilt and mid-majors.
++ Excellent 13-yard TD reception on a jumpball fade last week against Michigan’s CB Green. Just high-balled him as a mismatch guy in the red zone.
* Had four catches for a team-high 46 yards in the victory over Penn State.
* Three catches for 36 yards against Michigan.
* Last year as a freshman he had 16 catches.

TE 86 PEYTON HENDERSHOT (6-4, 255, Jr., North Salem, Ind.)
* HM All-Big Ten by coaches last year.
* Was a two-star recruit by Rivals.com, ranked No. 13 in Indiana by ESPN.
* Had an official visit to Penn State but did not get offered. Had offers from Syracuse, Wake Forest and MAC schools.

* Had team-high six catches against Rutgers for 34 yards and two short TDs.
* Four catches for 31 yards with a TD against Michigan.

* Had 52 catches last year but has dropped at least one pass in every game this year.
- Had a crossing route zip through his hands on third down with 3:30 to go in the PSU game and Indiana up 20-14.
- Had crossing route zip through his hands on third down in the 1Q of the Rutgers games. Might be having trouble with Pennix’ velocity.
- They went deep to him on a wheel in the 1Q vs Michigan but a catchable pass went through his finger tips.

* He had a 49-yard reception last year vs OSU on a double pass trick play from WR Hale, who has since graduated.

RUNNING BACKS:
The Skinny: Big guys who do the job, especially in short yardage, but haven’t been explosive (yet). Scott was a great stat man earlier in his career and is coming off a good 97-yard output against Michigan. His per-carry average has not been as good this year as it was in his first two seasons.

RB 8 STEVIE SCOTT III (6-2, 231, Soph., Syracuse, NY)

* Three star recruit ranked No. 11 in New York by Rivals.com
* Had offers from Army, Boston College, Duke, Pitt, Purdue, Syracuse.
* Took official visits to Indiana and Rutgers.
* Originally committed to Rutgers. Got hurt. De-committed. Former Michigan RB Mike Hart, Indiana’s RBs coach and a native of the Syracuse area, got in his ear and reeled him in for the Hoosiers.

* Rushed for 845 yards last year (4.7 per), and 1,137 as a freshman (5.0 per).

This year, he is averaging 3.6 yards per carry.

Scott rushed for: 57 yards against Penn State, 81 against Rutgers and 97 against Michigan.

* He ranks No. 1 in the Big Ten in rushing yards and total TDs since 2018.

+ 14-yard TD run against PSU on a check-with-me inside zone run (Indiana had three WRs to the boundary, PSU went with only one down lineman. IU had a numbers edge in the box and PSU vacated a gap.)


RB 6 JAMES SAMPSON (6-2, 220, Soph., Avon, Ind.)
* One of Indiana’s highest-ranked recruits of the last several years.
* Was a four-star recruit, ranked No. 3 in Indiana, No. 185 in the nation.
* Was an October commitment. Had offers from Arkansas, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State.

* Rushed for 33 yards on seven carries against Rutgers.
* Rushed for 25 yards on eight carries against Michigan, along with a 9-yard reception.
* Last year he rushed for 275 yards.


OFFENSIVE LINE:

The Skinny: Questionable at times in pass protection. Good enough in the run game with inside zone schemes. They didn’t have a problem with Rutgers’ tilted defensive tackle after having the advantage of seeing it on film against Michigan State.

Indiana’s offensive tackles really struggled in pass protection in the fourth quarter of the PSU game.

- Allowed a blind-side sack to an unblocked OLB as part of a five-man rush on a third down in the 1Q against PSU.

LT: 77 CALEB JONES (6-8, 362, Jr., Indianapolis)
* Was a three-star recruit by Rivals.com. Ranked No. 12 in Indiana by ESPN.
* Also had offers from Illinois, Purdue, MACs.

* Mammoth, mammoth size.

- Gave up three sacks in the 2H against PSU, including two to Shaka Toney of PSU. Michigan State doesn’t have a Shaka Toney. But Beesley might be able to get skinny against Jones and beat him on a rip or a duck-under.
* Jones didn’t look bad in pass protection in the last two games.

LG 56 MIKE KATIC (6-4, 311, R-Fr., Gibsonia, Pa.)
* No opinion, other than noticing that he allowed pressure to PSU’s Jayson Oweh on third-and-medium in the fourth quarter for an INC.

LG 57 HARRY CRIDER (6-4, 311, Sr., Columbus, Ind.)
* Was ranked No. 22 in Indiana.
* Had offers from Virginia MACs and Ivys.
* Captain.
* Rimington Trophy Watch List.
* Moving from LG to C this year.

RG 51 MACKENZIE NWORAH (6-4, 322, Sr., Houston)
* Was a 5.5 three-star unranked in Texas by Rivals.com.
* Was a spot starter for the previous three years, while battling injuries.
* No opinion other than noticing that he allowed pressure on a third-down hurry INC early in the Rutgers game.

RT MATTHEW BEDFORD (6-6, 314, Soph., Cordova, Tenn.)
* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 26 in Tennesssee.
*Was a summer commitment with offers from Mississippi State and South Carolina.
+ Good down block on a Scott 25-yard run in the 1H vs Rutgers.


INDIANA DEFENSE

* I’m not seeing many missed tackles. And they try to put good contact on you every chance they get.

- They will go with two deep safeties and a slot CB and allow themselves to be light in the box, numbers-wise. In theory, you should be able to run the ball against them in three-WR sets. They will flash a safety or corner in for help on run defense, run-blitz style so they end up not being as out-numbered in the box as they might look at pre-snap.

* They intercepted PSU QB Clifford twice in the first half. Once on a bad, duck of an overthrown screen. The other was an overthrown crossing route to the TE with the centerfield safety behind off man-to-man.

* They stay square, sturdy and hit pretty good when they get there.

* Their d-line didn’t get moved off the line of scrimmage vs PSU or Michigan, so I wouldn’t expect Michigan State to be able to do it either.

* Their d-line is going to be tough on the interior in short yardage. PSU couldn’t budge them inside the 5-yard line but resorted to a play-action pop pass to the TE on fourth-and-goal (old fashioned pop pass downfield, not the pop sweep).

Next drive, IU stopped PSU’s third-and-one inside run cold.

With 5 minutes left in regulation, Indiana stuffed PSU on a fourth-and-one inside zone run. Third-string Indiana DE CJ Person beat the PSU left tackle on the play, bulled him, displaced him and LB Cam Jones filled with a physical tackle.

* When they bring ILB cross blitzes, their LBs lower their shoulder and make strong contact with blockers to help logjam plays.

* They take on blockers with the correct shoulder, correct angle, and hit pretty hard.

SCHEMES, TRENDS & ANALYSIS

* PSU ran several QB draws and QB lead draws when catching Indiana light in the box (with two deep safeties as a third cornerback committed to the slot WR). The QB draw gives the offense a plus-one. Rocky Lombardi was a little dinged up last week so I don’t know how much Michigan State can use this.

* PSU’s QB Clifford scored on a 35-yard QB scramble against two-deep. Interestingly, Indiana was in zone. Usually long QB scrambles come when catching a defense in man-to-man. Not this time. That cut Indiana’s lead to 17-14 on the last play of the third quarter.

Clifford isn’t known as much of a runner, but he ran for 119 yards on 17 carries against Indiana.

* Rutgers caught Indiana in a slot CB blitz and executed a screen pass for 15 yards. That play looked like it had more potential at the outset but Indiana’s cover-three zone behind the blitz contained it.

But Indiana can be susceptible to screen passes, maybe not for huge plays, but for good chunks and chain-movers.

* PSU went deep vs pressing slot CB Tiawan Mullen in the fourth quarter. Mullen flagged for interference.

* Indiana held Michigan to 13 net yards rushing (42 in gains, 29 in losses). This is a staggering statistic that says a lot about Michigan’s floundering ways and also the secret sauce to Indiana’s 3-0 success. They are deceptively firm on the d-line, with swarming run support from LBs and DBs.

DEFENSIVE LINE

The Skinny: This group is deceptive. They don’t look like great athletes. They don’t make many plus plays. But they don’t lose the line of scrimmage while two-gapping, and the back seven behind them do such a good job of arriving correctly and on the same page that it all works out real well.

The d-line holds the point of attack with two-gapping technique, the LBs make good reads behind it, so Indiana can play a lot of downs with two deep safeties. If you can stop the run while keeping two safeties deep AND keeping a defensive back in the slot, then it’s like playing with 12 on the field.

This isn’t a great defense, but they’re getting the job done and causing turnovers.

DE 6 JAMES HEAD (6-5, 261, Jr., Miami)
* Was a 5.7 three-star recruit.

* Was a summer commitment with offers from Michigan State, Baylor, KSU, Mississippi State, Nebraska, Oregon, NC State, South Carolina, Tennessee.

Indiana NEVER used to be able to recruit like this in the south, aside from a few Gerry DiNardo recruits in Louisiana.

* Second-year starter.
* 2.5 sacks last year.
* I haven’t noticed any plus plays out of him this year.

DT 50 SIO NOFOAGATOTOA (6-4, 315, American Samoa/Clearwater (Fla.) Academy International)
* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit. Also had offers from Arizona, ASU, BC, Nebraska, Wisconsin, NC State and others.
+ Good job crossing face on a slant to get a TFL on a third-and-1 in the 1Q against PSU.
+ Good vs double-teams last week against Michigan.
* Had nine tackles last year.

(94 Demarcus Elliott)
* Solid when two-gapping in goal-line situation vs PSU.

DT 98 JEROME JOHNSON (6-3, 304, Sr., Bassfield, Miss.)
* Three-star recruit.
* Officially visited South Florida. Had offers from Louisville, Ole Miss, Illinois.
* Decent pass rushing turning the corner when stunting outside.
* A little questionable vs double teams, and really struggled with it last year.

DE 87 MICHEL ZIEMBA (6-3, 258, Sr., Sanford, Fla.)
* Was a 5.4 two-star recruit with mid-major offers.
* Stand-up defensive end.
* Had 6.5 TFLS last year.


DE 92 ALFRED BRYANT (6-2, 258, Jr., Fresno, Texas)
* Was a three-star recruit. Ranked No. 46 WDE in nation by Rivals.com.
* Had offers from Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Kansas State. * Stand-up DE.
- A little soft against PSU’s wham blocks. But Michigan State isn’t tough enough at TE to emulate that.

LINEBACKERS:
The Skinny: Solid, dependable guys, and they go two-deep.

LB 47 MICAH McFADDEN (6-2, 227, Jr., Tampa)
* Two-star recruit.
* Had offers from BC, UMass, Southern Miss, MACs.
+ Nifty A-gap blitzer on third downs. .
* Quality downhill MLB. Riley Bullough type.
+ Nice INT on a fourth-and-eight sprint right option by Rutgers in the 3Q. McFadden played zone, roamed with the No. 3 WR, got width, ran with him, made the play. Veteran play.

(LB 8 James Miller 6-2, 231, Soph., Tampa)
* 5.6, three-star recruit who committed on signing day after official visits to Indiana, Iowa, Marshall.
* He is McFadden’s back-up, will get playing time.
* Impressed with the force Miller put on PSU’s tight end when taking on a block.
* Slippery through the inside gaps with quick reads as a run defender.
* Good TFL on run blitz in the 3Q vs PSU, busting through a C/LG double team.
* This guy is a back-up? I said the same thing about Cam Jones last year.

(44 Allen Thomas, saw action in 1Q vs PSU.)

LB 4 CAM JONES, Jr., 6-3, 224, Memphis.
* He was a three-star, ranked No. 26 in Tennessee. He had offers from Tennessee, Mississippi State, Missouri.
* He has active speed in pursuit.
+ Hit Rutgers QB on a two-LB inside blitz, causing a pass attempt to flutter high for an INT. Second-string d-end Jon King intercepted it.

* Noticed him last year as a second-stringer as the type of frame/speed guy that Indiana rarely used to have in the past, especially a three-star out-of-state guy with this type of ability, beating SEC schools to get him. What’s that all about?
* Had an INT return for a TD last year against UConn.

HUSKY 31 BRYANT FITZGERALD (6-0, 209, R-Jr., Indianapolis)
* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 7 in Indiana.
* Had offers from Minnesota, Illinois.
(Replacing Marcelino Ball who is missing the season with an ACL).

* This is their overhang hybrid type defender.

* He’ll play CB in the slot quite a bit. And he’ll play at the LB level as a “box” DB at times, if you go with heavier personnel.


DEFENSIVE BACKS
The Skinny: They do a lot of shape-shifting back there, and they know where they’re going. Their knees are bent and they arrive full-tilt with no false steps. They’ve been forcing turnovers.

Michigan WR Ronnie Bell had six catches for 149 yards. Some teams have had success going deep middle.


CB 2 REESE TAYLOR (5-11, 185, Jr., Indianapolis)
* Was a 5.6 three-star recruit, ranked No. 11 in Indiana.
* Had offers from Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue, Wisconsin.
+ Excellent CB in run support, a sports car at avoiding blocks and knifing to the ball carrier.


(CB 23 Jaylin Williams (6-0, 179, Jr., Memphis)
* was a 5.5 three-star recruit, ranked No. 30 in Tennessee.
* Had offers from Missouri, Mississippi State, Wake Forest, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Washington State.
* plays some box DB
+ INT vs PSU on a bad screen pass.
- Beaten on a 23-yard over route vs Rutgers. QB had all day to throw. This is where Rutgers’ mediocre pass rush could give an opponent a chance to capitalize, especially when catching them in an easy-to-read, man-to-man rather than one of Indiana’s tricky zone coverages.
- Allowed 37 yard TD on a deep post to Michigan’s Cornelius Johnson. He played off at the line of scrimmage, outside technique like he was expecting safety help.


CB 3 TIAWAN MULLEN (5-10, 176, Soph., Fort Lauderdale)
* Was a 5.8 four-star recruit, ranked No. 43 in Florida.
* Took official visits to Kansas State, Nebraska, Pittsburgh,
* Excellent freshman season last year.
* Preseason All-Big Ten.
+ Excellent play, sniffing out a tunnel screen and ankle-tackling it from the back side for a loss of one.
- PSU went deep vs pressing slot CB Tiawan Mullen in the fourth quarter. Mullen flagged for interference.


SS 1 DEVON MATTHEWS (6-2, 200, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla.)
* Two-star recruit. Ranked No. 172 in Florida. Officially visited UConn, Cincinnati.
* Good break on the ball to break up an intermediate post in the 1Q vs PSU.
* Good physical hit on the TE after the catch.
* Good hitter in run support.

FS 22 JAMAR JOHNSON (6-1, 197, Jr., Sarasota, Fla.)
* Was a 5.5 three-star recruit.
* Had offers from Purdue, Iowa State, Virginia Tech.
+ Had a 63-yard pick six against Tennessee in the Gator Bowl.
* INT vs PSU, playing deep center field safety behind man to man coverage, picked off an overthrown ball.
+ Came on a CB blitz and stripped QB Clifford of PSU for a fumble on a third-and-1 at the 6-yard line late in the 1H.

(FS Juwan Burgess, 6-1, 187, Jr., Tampa)
* Burgess was a 5.6 three-star recruit. He committed two weeks before signing day with apparent offers from Alabama, Clemson, Arkansas, Florida, FSU, Auburn, Miami, Ohio State and pretty much everybody.
- * Indiana’s defense had been pretty much error free until a deep middle bust resulted in a 60-yard TD pass for PSU gave PSU a 21-20 lead with 2:00 to play. Second-string safety Juwan Burgess was beaten in zone coverage on the play, biting Indiana for perhaps playing too many reserves. Burgess played outside technique and allowed a fat window for the post route.

SPECIAL TEAMS

PK Charles Campbell, Soph.
* Is 6 for 6 on the year .
+ 48 yarder vs PSU. Was 2 for 2 vs PSU.
* Hit a 52-yarder against Michigan.

* Coverage and return teams: No opinion.

ADD IT ALL UP

Just when you think Michigan State is a limited, mistake-prone team and Indiana might be the best team in the Big Ten East outside of Ohio State, a game like this could bring both teams back to the middle.

The path to victory is tricky for Michigan State. Need to protect the QB against pressures and the QB has to make smart reads and not turn the ball over. Getting the ground game established is something Michigan State hasn’t done effectively all year, although there were some sparks of hope in each of the last two weeks. Indiana’s run defense has been good, not great.

They stuffed Michigan on the ground. Penn State’s tailbacks rushed for 113 yards on 34 carries (3.3 per), but PSU received a big boost from QB Clifford’s surprising 119 yards rushing on QB draws and scrambles.

For Michigan State to win this game, the Michigan State ground game needs to wake up and post something better than the 121 yards rushing that Rutgers put up. Can Michigan State get that done? Sure, but it’s something we haven’t seen them accomplish yet.

Rocky Lombardi was a little banged up last week and it affected his accuracy. His ability to pilot this offense through the air and an occasional keeper would seem unlikely after watching his play last week. At his best, he could do his part to help Michigan State win this game, including providing some plus plays. Whether or not he’s at his physical best is a fair question. And even if he is, will Michigan State be good enough in other areas of football to make a good day from Rocky stand up?

Michigan State needs Rocky to regain his accuracy on intermediate routes, get back to having good discretion, and sprinkle in some deep balls. Maybe more than “some” deep balls. Might need a raid of them like the Michigan game. Rutgers has given up some deep balls this year, with No. 22 and 23 getting beat. Michigan State will likely need to roll some deep dice in this game if the run game isn’t providing much return.

All of that COULD add up to 30 points of offense from Michigan State on a good day. But can Michigan State keep Indiana under 35?

First, avoid the turnover bug that Indiana’s opponents have had. Don’t give them a short field on turnovers, as Michigan State did against Rutgers and Iowa, and as Indiana’s opponents have done this year. A lot of that gets back to Lombardi and pass protection. The fumble issue wasn’t an issue in the past two weeks.

Make Indiana operate on a deep field, hope that your myriad of coverages and occasional pressures can contain a quality QB with an excellent trio of recievers. Going to need TE Hendershott to drop a couple more passes.

Overall, Michigan State just seems to need too many recent negatives to become positives overnight, and needs a hot Indiana team to look ahead to Ohio State and play as cold as they did for nearly two quarters against PSU. It’s possible, especially in this bizarro college football season of swings, especially with Indiana - as a program - possibly due for a correction, and Michigan State - as a program - possibly posing danger to a Top 10 opponent.

At the end of the day, however, Indiana looks consistent and responsible on defense, and the QB/WR combination for the Hoosier offense gives every indication that revved-up consistency is becoming the norm for them in 2020.