SB Nation User Blog: Kevin HD

On Letting The Big Ten Season Stay Up Past Its Bed Time

Kevin HD — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:26:10 -0000

What follows is definitely not sanctioned by above labeled authority.

I have a theory I'm not really sure I believe in but made sense to me one Saturday afternoon while talking over the pre-Penn State games with a friend. The theory? That Big Ten teams are built a bit differently than those in other conferences is order to survive in the unpleasant conditions of the late season. Now, for the first half of the schedule Big Ten weather isn't much different than the rest of the country, but what happens when your high flying Texas Techish attack is playing in 25 degree, 30 mph winds? I'm not suggesting that the Big Ten is "slow" or "old" or any of the other crap that comes with that line of conference blather, but it is almost a certainty that, playing in the midwest, you will face a situation where talent advantages are marginalized by mother nature at least once during the season and the winning team will be the one with the bruteness and balance that always seems to prevail on the muddy, wet, cold, windy gridiron. The chances of the Big Ten's leader stumbling to an inferior team in these conditions is higher than it would be in, say, southern California.

Sure, upsets are usually a good time, but an increase in bad weather games is only going to increase their occurrence, thus lowering the conference's chance of sending a team MNC'in. Remember just one loss puts you behind half a dozen other teams that are closer to the front of the line; the negative effects are only multiplied if you lose later in the season (when the bad weather hits).

That being said, I don't really have any data to back this up. Without looking up weather logs and charting teams with more pass heavy attacks... well it's a tall task and not really worth trying to prove anyway.

To get back on track here: I do think that pushing games further and further back into the winter, playing games during December*, is kind of asking for it.

Yes, it's better to be visible, idol teams dropping in the polls for no reason at all is a real thing, but I'm not sure all of our problems are fixed by simply pushing games further back into the year. The problems are just different. While the more popular teams in the league will draw fine in the cold, I don't know how easy it's going to be to get fans in Chicago to attend an already ill-watched Northwestern team. Same goes for Minnesota's new outdoor stadium.

Now cut out the ones in this picture that aren't sticking around for the worst Chicago has to offer.

I'm still interested to see how the Big Ten's scheduling decision, which pushes the last week of league games past Thanksgiving next year, will affect things. It's already a done deal, for better or worse, even with Ohio State and Michigan opposing it (the fact that the change was done in spite of this is, in all seriousness, stunning to me).

Lloyd Carr suggested, when this thing was still up for discussion, that Delaney loby the NCAA to allow the Big Ten to start a week early instead. While this is clearly an attempt at protecting the season ending game with Ohio State from becoming an annual Ice Bowl, I prefer that idea as well. The offseason is too long anyway. On the other hand, one might conclude that it's all an effort to replace the Land Grant Trophy with its much more awesome bearded version (for warmth, of course), in which case, I'm all of the sudden fine with it.

Because public polls always lead to a situation where everyone wins, let's hear what you think in the poll below.

*Note that this isn't actually possible right now. The new rule allows games to be played the first weekend after Thanksgiving but not any later. I looked up (yes, I actually looked this up) and it turns out Thanksgiving will never be any later then it was this year, meaning Big Ten football in December is allowed only via mediocre bowl games.

Poll

Are you okay with Penn State eventually moving home games into the last part of November?

At this point, I should apologize to those e-mailers from Penn State, who were outraged when I...

Kevin HD — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:48:59 -0000

At this point, I should apologize to those e-mailers from Penn State, who were outraged when I included the Nittany Lions in a list of slow teams from the Midwest.

I was wrong. They're not really from the Midwest.

Oh snap, Plaschke!

This is shaping up to be the best on-paper matchup other than the yet to be determined MNC game. Two teams that play great defense and score points. A coach in the middle of one of the best runs ever and a coach at the end of the best career ever. You would think that, instead of writing stories that sound just like the thousands that have been written since the now two year old OSU-Florida game, journalists would jump at the chance to put out new material. But keep blaming the death of newspapers on the internet.

Nitt Picks Is Saying 'Yeah!'

Kevin HD — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:28:42 -0000

Sometimes in life it's better to let other people do the talking. You are a homer anyway, and so quoting someone else will probably make whatever is said more credible.

Penn State > USC? Yeah! The most disappointing thing about the post-Iowa polls (other than them showing Penn State with a loss, of course) was the fact that so many pollsters found it a forgone conclusion that USC was a more worthy one loss team than the Nittany Lions. My spitting into the rain seemed futile, but the MSM just might catch on after all.

If Oregon State beats Oregon, then could you put USC in the national title game over Penn State? How? Penn State blew out Oregon State and beat Ohio State in Columbus. USC lost to Oregon State and beat Ohio State at home. Besides, USC, in this scenario, doesn't even earn the top spot in the Pac 10, even if it does win a share of the Pac 10 title.

Ok, so that's just one writer who probably doesn't even vote. But the point is not that everyone needs convinced, just that they need to justify it either way.

Computer polls going all "I, Robot"? Yeah! I used to support the fact that the computers are included in the BCS; they seem to apply objective criteria to everyone equally and, therefore, help guard against any sweeping bias. My high regard for the digital changed this season. Dr. Saturday explains it's not the computers' fault.

This is the kind of absurdity that results when you withhold information: If the computers were allowed to take into account margin of victory instead of treating every win as exactly the same, those algorithms would make infinitely more sense (the poll Sagarin would submit if he could has Oklahoma No. 2 and Tech fourth).

Including margin of victory is a double edge sword and, to be honest, those running the BCS are totally justified in excluding it from the formula. It allows the computers to come up with much more logical results, but the problem of excluding them is replaced with the problem of understanding them. Coaches feel the need to take unnecessary end zone shots after the opponent has already put in the second string defense, all to make the victory a +28 instead of +21. When voters see these things they often are able to put them in context, but a computer will not.

Dr. Saturday expands later:

[Computers are] forced to throw out margin of victory by BCS rules, eliminating the difference the humans see in winning 65-21 and winning, say, 3-2. When there are so few games to compare, no win is really just a win, period, but them's the rules.

That's right, of course, but it's not the golden ticket. In my example above, if the team that wins by 28 with a late TD against non-starters better than the team that, up 35, is scored on a la last Saturday's late Michigan State drive against third team players? That two point conversion at the end would make a computer think so. It allows too much manipulation and, besides, doesn't take into account things like weather and officiating.

So what do I think after seeing Penn State two spots lower in the BCS than their consensus human poll average? Seeing them ranked behind Ohio State in Billingsley's poll? Trailing Georgia and Oklahoma State in other formulas?

Just get rid of them. They are imperfect machines that aren't being allowed to use all the data available and don't seem to be adding any value. If you want a broader base for the BCS average, there are other ways of achieving this.

A rivalry is born? Umm...Yeah! No. Adam Rittenberg at ESPN wonders if the fake rivalry didn't "get legs" this weekend.

Dantonio said later that his two timeouts were not a reply to Devlin's touchdown pass.

"There's no motivation there. I think the problem was earlier in the game. I was just trying to give our guys a rest."

Hmm, not so sure I buy that.

One of the things I love about Dantonio is that he doesn't downplay games or certain opponents. He certainly doesn't minimize the Michigan rivalry, and he might have just injected some flavor to a previously bland rivalry with Penn State.

The back-to-back timeouts at the end of the last weeks game made me realize something, but it wasn't that Michigan State is now a rival. It's that MSU might have just done the impossible: replace John L. Smith with someone just as ridiculous and pathetic. Michigan State fans: if you want to lose the "little brother" tag, stop defending a coach that acts like a whinny brat.

The letters come with the bus? Yeah! The first blue bus has been sold, winning bid?

The "ultimate tailgating vehicle" was recently auctioned off on eBay -- a bus Penn State used to transport its football players to Beaver Stadium for home games from 1980 to 2007, the first of several to put up for sale. The winning bid for the first bus on the block: $4,050.

And who says the marketing people at PSU don't know what they are doing? In a line right out of The Price Is Right:

"Entertain friends in style at next season’s tailgates with a vehicle steeped in Penn State football history," read the promotional copy.

Oregon State In The BCS: A Lot Of Different Parties Involved, Man

Kevin HD — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:38:31 -0000

Now that Paterno's BCS fate has been jinx-proofed via a Big Ten Championship, it's time to take a look at what others have to do with Penn State's eventual situation.

So what are we to do, as Penn State fans, about this unexpected third party interest? The Civil War is set for Saturday (7:00 pm EST on everyone's favorite second rate sports network: Versus). So after I take down my fifth plate of Thanksgiving leftovers, these are the things that will be running through my head before the game.

A shot at USC would be fun. Yes, playing USC in LA has it's downside. They are essentially at home. They are incredibly comfortable playing there (they've been to the game four times in the last five years, plus the "road games" they play in the Rose Bowl against UCLA). They almost always perform up to their talent level in big games and, as you might have heard, they are incredibly talented.

Still, there is definitely something to gain. Where Ohio State failed miserably, Penn State can succeed. They can make people question the structure of the Big Ten and further drive home the differences between the Big Ten Champion and their co-champion impostor.

Rematches are less fun. Especially when the team you root for completely dominated the first version of the series.

From a public perception standpoint, Penn State has absolutely nothing to gain here. From a fan's standpoint, this takes away significantly from the thought of winning the Rose Bowl...if we win. If not, or even if it ends as a close victory for Penn State, it will be completely unsatisfying for all of the obvious reasons. Losing to a very talented team isn't a shameful experience...it comes with the territory. Losing to a team you beat just months prior is sour.

Rooting for the less-often-successful is more fun. Let's be honest: everyone is tired of USC. They have been the undisputed (as in best record plus winning all the head-to-head "tie-breakers") champion of the Pacific-10 conference for five straight years now and it would be nice to see someone break that streak. I like the under dog story and even more so when it includes a team that isn't usually in the mix.

Plus, who can forget this?

The Big Ten could use a good bowl record. Count me in as one of the people who completely underestimated the power of group think. I gave the voters a lot more credit than they deserved: I assumed they would not buy in so completely to the Big Ten hate and actually evaluate the teams at the top on their individual merit. This did not happen. One loss teams were getting first place votes over an undefeated Penn State and there was increased momentum to actually jump them over a potential 12-0 Paterno team on a consolidated basis.

Oregon State in the Rose Bowl means USC as an at-large. They would be getting the last spot available, leaving two loss, second place Ohio State "screwed" and facing an SEC school in the Capital One Bowl. This also bumps everyone else down, turning a lot of match-ups in which the Big Ten team would be dogs into matchups where the teams are closer to equals. The Big Ten already has what is probably the toughest (although best paying) tie-ins of any conference. On top of that, the Big Ten has sent more teams to the BCS over the past five years than any other conference. This has negative effects on the conference's recent bowl record. As much as I even hate the conference discussion, it was actually affecting the voting in unprecedented ways and needs to be curbed. Winning bowl games would be a good way of achieving this.

I haven't given up my hope for the improbable. I think "not quite impossible" is probably a better description, but regardless: USC failing to win the Pac-10 could potentially increase the chances of Penn State climbing back into the MNC game. It would take a long string of football related events plus some interesting public perception swings, but the list of Things That Need To Happen includes a scenario in which Penn State can get in front of USC. A loss for the Trojans seems highly unlikely; Notre Dame is dead in the water and UCLA, at 4-6, is probably a similar underdog.

The most likely method to madness: Florida would have to lose to FSU and then somehow beat Alabama in the SEC Championship Game; Oklahoma State would have to knock off Oklahoma, putting Texas Tech in the CCG; Missouri would probably then need to beat the Red Raiders. That still leaves Texas and USC ranked ahead of Penn State, but the fact that Penn State actually can call themselves a conference champion, while the other two cannot, might help make them one of the two teams left in the mix. Or it might not, but I'm sayin' there's a chance.

...

So what does it all mean? Well, to be straight with you, I still haven't made up my mind. Oregon State is a good story and I would like to see them earn a spot in the Rose Bowl. I'm tired of USC, but it would make the actual game a lot more fun and has tremendous up-side, something a rematch lacks. But would the chance of a possible rematch deter me from giving up MCN hope? Well even if USC did "lose" there is no telling what kind of mood the voters would be in anyway; probably one we would perceive as bad.

This is a very complicated case...a lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous.

Grading The Offense Against Michigan State

Kevin HD — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:25:41 -0000

"Everything was perfect today." - Derrick Williams

Quarterback

I normally start with the offensive line because, well, the offense starts with the offensive line. Well today we start with Daryll Clark, who did in fact get his swagger back. His 341 passing yards were the most a Penn State quarterback has thrown since 2003 and that, along with the rest of his ridiculous stat line, was enough to earn him a Big Ten Player Of The Week award for the second time this season.

vs Michigan St. / 11.22.08	Passing					Rushing
	Comp	Att	Pct	Yds	TD	Rush	Yds	Avg	TD
Daryll Clark	16	26	61.5	341	4	4	4	1.0	1

Everything that we were concerned about after Iowa and the first half of Indiana was completely absent. He made the short passes, he held on to the ball, he was throwing beautiful long balls to receivers in the cold and wind. The big play offense that had been lacking for several weeks was back with passes of 70, 49, 37, 33 and 32 yards.

Not to complain, but it is interesting to note the Clark is simply not running the ball. This isn't a bad thing; his QB rating on Saturday was 222.47 (yes, you are reading that right). This marks the fifth time this season Clark had under 10 yards rushing.

Final Grade: A+

Offensive Line

I usually grade these guys based on rushing stats but I think it's important to give them credit for the time Clark had to throw the ball. There was just one sack on the day and a good effort on the play calls that require the quarterback to not only wait for the play to develop, but also be able to lean forward and throw the strike down field. You really can't underestimate how important it was for Clark to have time to gain confidence.

Royster received most of the meaningful carries and was good for his usual 6.6 ypc. Shipley was an absolute beast down field, at one point blocking the entire Michigan State defense and then tackling the ball carrier on accident. There is still football to be played, and there are three important seniors on this line, but Shipley is one of those guys you probably aren't going to even come close to replacing. He is fun to watch.

Final Grade: A

Running Backs

In cold weather, at home, it was important to set the tone with solid running. Royster has been by far the most underrated back in the conference. He doesn't waste any time getting to the line of scrimmage yet is perfectly patient when waiting for lanes to develop. He always falls forward for that extra yard or two and (with the exception of when a defensive lineman comes unblocked right up the middle for a clean hit) is difficult to bring down. He doesn't get the carries he needs to earn the newspaper touting, but I wouldn't trade him and his 6.5 ypc for any other back in the league. He fits perfectly into a very diverse offense and rarely disappoints when he gets the ball.

Green ran well, and is definitely very good at accelerating in open space, but his up-the-middle game needs work. The two of them are both worth playing as the warn out "home run" analogy for Green is probably a good one. It forces the defense to change the way they play and I think, even if Green has trouble getting the fourth yard between the tackles, his presence is very valuable to the success of the offense.

Final Grade: A

Wide Receivers

There was a point in the third quarter where the announcers commented on the complete absence of Deon Butler in the passing game. He immediately caught three passes, all for touchdowns, and ended the day with 133 yards and a 44 yard per catch average. Williams scored a TD himself, and Norwood was good for 127 yards. I have nothing else to add to their performance except to say that it could not have been more fun to watch. There will be plenty of time to get nostalgic about the value of these three players, but for now just appreciate the fact that we get to watch them play one more time.

vs Michigan St. / 11.22.08	Receiving
	Rec	Yards	Avg	TD
Derrick Williams	4	51	12.8	1

vs Michigan St. / 11.22.08	Receiving
	Rec	Yards	Avg	TD
Deon Butler	3	133	44.3	3

vs Michigan St. / 11.22.08	Receiving
	Rec	Yards	Avg	TD
Jordan Norwood	5	127	25.4	0

Graham Zug was a two start recruit who received scholarship offers from mostly D1-aa schools. He finished with 33 yards and a nifty TD on third and long in the red zone.

Final Grade: A+

Poll

Who was the offensive MVP against Michigan State?

Big Ten Geeks Look At Remaining Non-conference BBall Schedule

Kevin HD — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:54:58 -0000

Big Ten Geeks Look At Remaining Non-conference BBall Schedule

"The schedule includes a lot of bunnies, but there's also a handful of games against other teams that figure to end up on the bubble."

The Players Hint At Dissent: What First Downs Have To Say About It

Kevin HD — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:22:39 -0000

Some of the players on the team have been quoted discussing internal strife over play calling. It was a topic after the Iowa game, in which it seemed like the coaches weren't playing to win. Well now it sounds like the players are echoing some of the sentiment expressed on the interweb over the past couple of week.

"Obviously we've got a lot of guys on the team who have played a lot of football, we know what we're talking about when we see a defense thrown at us," Butler said. "Sometimes we got a little carried away with 'We should be running this play or that play.' Whatever play they call, let's execute it, and let's not get carried away with what plays we aren't running."

He's not the only one speaking up:

"We were running the ball a lot, and then these last two games, we've kind of gotten away from it a little bit," Shipley said. "We started to question that a little bit. We're all guilty of it."

[...]

"It's been a slight problem," Clark said. "We have to get away from it. Regardless of what the call is, it's not like it's new. ... If Jay [Paterno] calls it, if Galen [Hall] calls it, go out and make it happen. That's that."

To continue the quotefest, what Shipley probably meant to say was expressed in the comments of the offensive grading this week by jimbo2psu:

There’s nothing more satisfying to an offensive lineman than knowing you can dominate your man every play, and there’s nothing more frustrating than knowing that and then hearing a reverse called in, or a WR screen, or a deep bomb from a struggling QB fall incomplete and leave you in a hole.

So maybe the problem isn't that the offense is getting more conservative, but that they aren't utilizing their strengths on first down. The players know Royster is averaging 6-7 ypc and yet they are in second and ten way too often. That frustration leads to an ill-executed passing play and then all of the sudden it is third and long and everyone is upset about the first two play calls. It's a good theory anyway.

I went and looked back at the play-by-play against Iowa and Indiana to try and find some trends.

Charts. Yes, charts. I separated every play ran on a first down into either a run or pass. From there, I tracked the results of the "set". I don't really know what else to call these: a "set" is a set of downs that ends with either another first down, a punt, a turnover or a score. A "success" is defined as either a first down or a touchdown.

1st Down Play	Count	Success	%
Rush	21	16	76%
Pass	10	8	80%

So there you are. I don't know if this is the best way to judge an offense but it suits our discussion. Bullets.

The actual rush/pass mix was 46/24, or 66% run. On first downs, as charted above, that percentage is 68%.
Only 40% of the ten passes on first down were completions.
No scoring "set" started with a pass.
Of the three "sets" that ended with a punt, two began with passes.

The bag is mixed here so I don't know what to conclude. The run was used significantly more often but wasn't any more effective at moving the chains than the pass. It is interesting that the pass was not the first play called in any of the scoring "sets", but perhaps we are on to something here. The run is safe, you can't be sacked or throw an interception, and I can't help but wonder if the three field goals from that game were all a result of the coaches clamming up once the team got itself into scoring range.

Here is the Indiana chart, I quit once the score hit 27-7 for obvious reasons:

1st Down Play	Count	Success	%
Rush	11	7	64%
Pass	13	9	69%

Pretty much the same story.

As I'm wrapping this up I am starting to second guess my classification of field goals as failures; if you include them it makes it look like the rush is much more effective, but then again maybe that is the point. The fact that Penn State so often settled for three when seven would have been better is, to me, the story of the Iowa game. Maybe the problem isn't that the offense isn't capable, but that it becomes a different offense once they are inside Kelly's range. He is a sure thing (15 for 15) inside the 40, the coaches know th. I don't know if it's a run vs. pass issue, but more a question of how predictable they become in scoring range.

The Beard Is At Stake, People

Kevin HD — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:11:28 -0000

I just want to remind everyone of the stakes this weekend. Hate Week comes but once a year.

[Creation of reader Cairo: "Defensive End Maurice Evans sports the newly redesigned "Abe Lincoln Land Grant Trophy" while signing autographs."]

Grading The Coverage: The Big Ten Network

Kevin HD — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:34:18 -0000

Now before we get going: The BTN is a good thing. I'm not upset about its existence. Quite the opposite actually. They cover games that otherwise would absolutely not be available to most of us and so maybe I shouldn't be complaining. But guess what: I am. Besides, complaining about TV coverage is fun.

The ability to follow the play.

If this was as "circus" as the announcers make it sound, it would have been fun to, you know, watch. I know that the play-fake has taken it's toll on many a camera man, but this is actually kind of funny. "Over there, no, over here! Wait, go back!". Also, I can't see anything.

The ability to see a play develop.

There are about eight too many zoom lenses on that camera. I'm not concerned with the physical act of Williams running, I'd like to know where he is going to end up. Running lanes, holes in the coverage...that kind of stuff.

I mean look at this shot below. There is simply no value in this other than as a some type of complementary photo for a dying local newspaper.

Basic video composition.

This isn't really relevant and I wouldn't have brought it up except that it looks like one of those in the cockpit NASCAR shots. I haven't taken a video course before but I suspect that one of the things they tell you to do is get both heads in the shot if two people are talking. But again, I could be wrong.

Communicating simple things like the score.

Okay, I'm just piling on at this point but comeon. This wasn't even after a score, where you could make some type of excuse like you typed it in wrong or hit the 'touchdown' button too many times. Also: two point conversion?

So in conclusion...I'm probably being too harsh and over-reacting. It's just a game, the Indiana game, and who cares if they messed up a couple of times. I guess I'm just amused. With the help of Fox and millions of dollars in investment from the schools, it shouldn't be that hard to get experienced people in there to cover the game. It’s not that these miscues happened often, it’s just that three days later one of the couple things I still remember about the game is the several rounds of jokes we all made while sitting at the bar watching the game, although maybe that says more about me than the BTN.

I suppose this whole thing could have been avoided if the game started at 3:30…the bar has a way of making you complacent by then.

Grading The Offense Against Indiana

Kevin HD — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:35:24 -0000

Another tale of two halves.. It's probably a little troubling, a start like this against even an average team could be trouble. But then again, it was a hangover game if there ever was one and it was the most points Penn State has been favored by against a Big Ten opponent since 1994.

Quarterback

Clark took a lot of heat last week and whatever it was that caused him problems against Iowa seemed to bleed into the first half of this game. His passing was erratic and the fumble on the goal line was a major mistake. Everything felt forced and Clark seemed to constantly be throwing off the wrong foot and sometimes even leaning backwards. He also seemed to get caught in the pocked more than a mobile quarterback should. There was a moment in the second quarter when you wondered if he was going to be able to pull himself together.

But then he did. He finished with solid stats and overcame some receiver drops for what turned into a great second half. You can tell mistakes bother him a lot; this is probably not healthy. He needs to be able to forget whatever it is he has done and move on. You can tell he's probably not doing this. Exhibit A:

Notice anything? I'm convinced this isn't a talent issue at all but simply Clark over-thinking everything. At the beginning of the year he was attacking, not holding anything back, and now all of the sudden he is struggling to make the 8 yard pass and losing the ball.

Also, the interception was simply bad luck. Maybe it was a little under-thrown but that one is hard to hold against him.

Final Grade: (First Half/Second Half) C- / A

Offensive Line

The regression of the offensive line is probably the most troubling thing about these last two weeks. Not that they aren't still playing okay, it's just that they were so strong at the beginning of the season and now there are multiple instances of defensive linemen going untouched and very few big holes being opened up. Royster was almost killed early in the game when this unit broke down in short yardage, and there were also several instances where Clark didn't even have enough time to get himself out of the pocked.

Now 207 yards (excluding sacks) isn't anything to be ashamed of, but it seems like there are almost no big running plays anymore and a lot of that is due to the fact that the running backs are fighting for every yard rather than getting the space we saw earlier in the season to create the home run.

Final Grade: B

Running Backs

The breakdowns on the offensive line are probably hurting Green the most. He needs space early to be effective and he isn't getting it. His longest carry of the day was six yards and he was held to an average of just three. Part of this is on him, of course, if he wants to be the feature back he needs to develop a power game.

Royster, on the other hand, seems to deal with this well. He didn't break anything for over 20 yards but showed great patience in tight running lanes and was able to end the day with a very good 5.2 ypc average.

Final Grade: A-

Receivers / Tight Ends

While the emergence of The Real Derrick Williams is fun to watch, there seems to be something a little off with the receivers. This is going to be a mixed bag review because the numbers are so impressive, but these seniors are repeatedly dropping passes and it's troubling. Clark had several well placed balls that seemed to fall right through the veterans' hands. Remember this:

Now I know there were some not-so-great passes, but what happened to the hands in the video above?

This was mentioned in Artiefufkin10's FanPost and I agree: Norwood doesn't appear to be 100%, or if he is the coaches don't know it. He's not being utilized as effectively as he was at the beginning of the year. Regardless, he did lead the team in receiving yards with 69, and both Butler and Williams were over 50 yards and recorded a TD each.

Final Grade: B

Coaching

Something changed before Ohio State. The team was ultra-aggressive leading up to that game and it was working flawlessly. The Oregon State game was an all out attack, and in the first half alone the coaches called several very deep passes down field. The playcalling was hard to predict and, for the most part, the offense was hard to stop. Then, in Columbus, we saw a return to the Don't Screw Up offense, hardly of the HD variety, and for better or worse it worked. Looking back, the way the team won against Ohio State this season was the exact same way they lost against Michigan last year. If it wasn't for two major fumbles in Ann Arbor, Penn State wins. But that's the problem: betting that you won't make a single mistake is a tough way of call a game. If you play flawlessly then it works, but guess what? You aren't going to be able to pull that off every week.

The effectiveness of the gameplan two weeks ago probably has had an impact on future playcalling and the entire staff has reverted to this grind it out approach. This is bad bad 1,000 times bad. We had made such progress...

Back to grading the game at hand: The coaches decided they were going to pass when it was probably true that a gameplan that includes 75% run would have covered the spread. Covering the spread wasn't the goal though; the point was to win but also give Clark his confidence back. It almost backfired in devastating fashion. The game was won anyway, and you really can't complain about the number of players who were included in the offense and 442 yards of total offense.

Final Grade: B