Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

if I were Phil PArker, I'd be looking for a different job

I know coaches are loyal but, That's redickeruous

Bill Connelly calculated that by just punting on 1st down every time they got the ball, the expected outcome would have been 4 points closer

Given the way things look at this point, all Ohio State analysis has to be conducted through the lens of how the Buckeyes compare to the Wolverines (the reverse is true for Michigan).

I went into this game thinking that:

• Michigan's rushing offense was a bit better than Ohio State's, but I wasn't sure by how much so that was one thing I wanted to find out.
• Ohio State's passing offense was a bit better than Michigan's, but I wasn't sure by how much so that was another thing I wanted to find out.
• Michigan's defense was a bit better than Ohio State's, but I wasn't sure by how much so that was another thing I wanted to find out.

How those things compared in this game:

Rushing offenses:
Michigan gained 172 yards on 42 attempts against the Hawkeyes for an average of 4.1. Ohio State gained 66 yards on 30 attempts for an average of 2.2. While this is obviously an advantage for Michigan, the difference might not be as significant as it appears because while 2.2 is obviously not effective, 4.1 really isn't either.

If an offense gained 4 yards per carry with zero variance that would result in a lot of TD's on:

• 1st and 10,
• 2nd and 6,
• 3rd and 2,
• 1st and 10
• Repeat as necessary.

In reality, however, there is always variance. In this example Michigan had longer runs of:

• 20 by Corum LATE in the game against Iowa's gassed D,
• 16 by Bell, and
• 12 by Edwards

Michigan's other 39 carries went for 124 or <3.2 per. That average results in a lot of punts (Michigan went 4/11 on 3rd down and 1/1 on 4th down with four punts.


Ohio State's rushing offense was even worse at 2.2.

Passing offenses:
Michigan was 18/24 for 155 yards with a TD. That is an average of 6.5 per attempt and 8.6 per completion.

Ohio State was 22/32 for 294 yards with 4 TD's and a pick. That is an average of 9.2 per attempt and 13.4 per completion.

Michigan's completion percentage is higher but it should be, their passes were half as long.

Defenses:
This is where I was very pleasantly surprised. We all know that Iowa's offense is the comically bad walking embodiment of nepotism so it is no surprise that Michigan held them to 281 total yards. Ohio State held them to barely over half of that and forced six turnovers. Even if you don't count Iowa's two minute drill late TD against Michigan (I know that @Mdot21 won't) the Buckeyes still allowed substantially less yards and forced all those turnovers.

I disagree with "meaningless". The problem with the transitive property isn't that the concept is bunk, the problem is lack of data because teams absolutely do have good and bad games.

If Michigan and Ohio State played the exact same 11 opponents prior to playing each other and Michigan rushed for more yards against each of the 11, that would be conclusive proof that Michigan's rushing offense was better than Ohio State's.

Similarly, if Ohio State held each of the 11 common opponents to less yards and forced more turnovers against each of the 11, that would be conclusive proof that Ohio State's defense was better than Michigan's.

The problem here is that for now we are only looking at one data point.

still think it's kinda meaningless. impossible to take into account road vs home and 18-21 year olds playing up/down to the competition. I know we all like to think these guys are robots- but sometimes they come out flat- and others they are just FIRED up to play a certain team for whatever reason. it's a game of emotion/mental toughness at the end of the day.

A football game has so many random events if it's competitive, one side may gain a clear upper hand randomly, and not because they were unusually "up" for the contest.  So, a team looks incredible one week and paltry the next, often due to randomness.