More photos » Paul Sancya - AP

Final Saturday of the regular season, as the Founding Fathers intended.

Browse more photos »

So, big picture, the process of arriving at Big Ten divisions can be summed up as follows:

• Step 1: Maximize the odds that Michigan and Ohio State meet in the title game by putting them in opposite divisions and precisely balancing the two divisions based on post-1993 performance.
• Step 2: Guarantee that, should the outcome you want from Step 1 actually occur, there will be at least some level of anticlimax associated with the outcome since the two teams in question will be playing in back-to-back weeks.  As a bonus, you reduce the odds of getting semifinal-type games in the final week of the regular season and stick several teams with decided non-rival Rivalry Week opponents.  And, that's not enough, every Big Ten team will miss playing one conference opponent for a full four-year period starting next season.
  

So, like, smashing success, boys.  So much more interesting (and revenue maximizing!) than a simple geographic split.

Moving right along: Within the context of the jury-rigged framework Jim Delany et al. have created, MSU comes out looking pretty good.  Our primary rival is in our division, Nebraska and Iowa are somewhat less frightening than Ohio State and Penn State as divisional foes, and fixed cross-divisional rivals don't come much friendlier than Indiana (as artificially-generated as that rivalry may be, Brass Spittoon or not).  (Bonus: Mark Hollis gets his regular trips to Chicago to play Northwestern.)  If/when MSU puts itself in a position to make a run at a Big Ten title, odds are we won't be able to complain about schedule imbalances as a major obstacle.

Of course, the two non-fixed cross-divisional opponents we drew for the first two years of 12-team play both came up "CONTENDER": Ohio State and Wisconsin.  There was a decent chance we'd draw two teams from the OSU/PSU/Wisconsin group, 30%, but that does take the short-term sheen off the IU thing.  (By the way, there was some sort of a random draw, right?  Right?  Who am I kidding?  Probably not.)

Continue reading this post »

More photos » Al Goldis - AP

Both these guys made the starting lineup.

Browse more photos »

I may be a basketball-inclined college sports blogger, but I could certainly have done with less basketball-related news over this past MSU sports blogging offseason.  It's made for great traffic and commenting levels, but it's also induced way too much offseason stress and introduced too many question marks for the the upcoming basketball season.

I'm going to go ahead and declare the Offseason of Tumult over.  (I presume all individuals associated with MSU athletics will recognize my authority in this area and adhere to the edict.)  After all, we've got a real, live regular season football depth chart now.  And real, live Spartan sports action is less than 100 hours away.

Joe Rexrode has already covered the major data points to be gleaned from the depth chart.  Building off his work, here are my own musings:

• Very nice to not have an "OR" at the quarterback spot this fall.  I'm a numbers guy, so I don't tend to put a lot of stock in intangibles, but having a clear leader at the quarterback spot has to be worth something.
• Making Andrew Maxwell the back-up quarterback is absolutely the right move.  In the horrific scenario that Kirk Cousins goes down for the season, the coaching staff would no doubt take a hard look at moving Keith Nichol back to quarterback and making him the starter.  Short of that, having a back-up quarterback who's spending his 100% of his time focused on the position is what you want.
• Four co-starters at the two receiver spots: B.J. Cunningham, Mark Dell, Keshawn Martin, Nichol.  I'd think Cunningham and Dell are the favorites to see the most playing time in two-WR sets, as they continue to work themselves back into Mark Dantonio's good graces from the dorm assault incident.  (Martin and Nichol were listed as the only starters on the spring depth chart.)  Martin and Nichol will certainly see lots of time on the field, though.  The trick play options when both of them are on the field are almost limitless.  I'm thinking flea-flicker/throw-back/reverse/option-pass.
  
• Four tight tends who will contribute.  We knew that already, of course.
• Le'Veon Bell is the only tailback listed behind Edwin Baker and Larry Caper.  As noted by LVS in his post on the rushing game, Bell looks tantalizingly goalline-backish at 6'2", 230 pounds.  Caper is expected to play against Western despite suffering some sort of arm/wrist injury that has him wearing a cast.
  
• I'd forgotten about Fred Smith moving to fullback.  He's the back-up behind Josh Rouse.
• Offensive line had already pretty much shaken itself out.  He locked up the position early and hasn't gotten a lot of attention of late (very likely a good thing), but I still think D.J. Young may be the most important player on this team, protecting Cousins' backside.  Young's a senior, but he's also going into just his second season as an active MSU player after transferring from Bowling Green.  Hopefully, his experience at right tackle last season translates well to the left side.
• The depth chart reinforces how young the defensive line is: Of the 12 players listed are, 8 are freshmen or sophomores.  We'll be watching one of those young linemen just a little more than the others: William Gholston is listed as the back-up (behind co-starters) at the "RUSH" end position.  Three "OR"s among the 4 defensive line spots, so lots of opportunities for people to make themselves factors.  Blake Treadwell is questionable for Saturday's game with a leg injury.
  
• No surprises at linebacker or in the secondary.  Lots of freshmen once you get past the starters in the defensive backfield.  (Sidenote: After the disaster that was the MSU pass defense last season, who would have thought that the weakest Big Ten secondary in the state would reside in Ann Arbor?)
• Final "OR" is at placekicker: Dan Conroy and Kevin Muma.  Barring catastrophe, there should be a couple of weeks to sort that out before there's the potential for a game-deciding field goal attempt.

Final bit: Rexrode reports that the team has something called a "unity council": a group of 12 players from which the 4th weekly rotating captain will be selected (joining Cousins, Greg Jones, and Aaron Bates).  Sounds a little too much like a part of a communist leadership apparatus, but anything that helps keep the entire roster on the straight and narrow off the field is a good thing in my book.

On that note, we've come full circle back to off-the-field/court tumult.  Let the games begin!

WRONG!!  You all had Special K with ba-na-na!

In an effort to cloak the inadequacy of our season previewing thus far, over the next four days, we're going to look at the four most critical questions facing the Michigan State football team in 2010.  First up: whether MSU will be improve its rushing productivity.

One of the more remarkable aspects of MSU's 2009 football season was the seemingly complete reversal in offensive styles.  The 2008 team usually employed a positively paleolithic approach, wherein the object was to give the ball to Javon Ringer as often as possible and have Brian Hoyer throw the ball only as a change of pace.  Conversely, the 2009 offense, particularly later in the season, was built on an impressive passing game and seemed to run only as an afterthought.

. . . or so the storyline went.  By most measures, amazingly, MSU was a better rushing team in 2009 than in 2008:

	ATT	YDS	YPC	YPG	TDs
2008	511	1692	3.3	130.2	24
2009	419	1779	4.2	136.8	16

Of course, much of the 2008 narrative was established early in the season, when Ringer was scoring touchdowns by the bunches and racked up 4 games with at least 190 yards.  By the time Ringer started faltering down the stretch--surely a victim of his obscene workload--MSU's identity as a rushing team was firmly established.

In 2009, however, Your Spartans featured a host of young running backs, the second-most inexperienced offensive line in the Big Ten, and a potentially-outstanding passing attack.  The pieces seemingly weren't in place for substantial productivity on the ground, but three things occurred.  First, the passing game was perhaps even better than advertised, and as defenses focused in on stopping the pass, the running game received more opportunities to shine.  Second, the offensive line jelled fairly well, becoming a well-above average pass-blocking unit, and, at the very least, an adequate run-blocking unit.  Third, the running backs grew up in a hurry.  Larry Caper was solid all season long, Glenn Winston showed promise before blowing out his knee, Edwin Baker did excellent work after his redshirt was burned, and, of course, Ashton Leggett had one absolutely outstanding game against Western Michigan.

Fortunately, it appears that some of the pieces are in place for MSU's ground game to be more efficient and more productive in 2010.

First, while Leggett and Winston are gone (thankfully), Baker and Caper return and figure to be even better in their second years.  Caper was listed as the starter on the pre-practice depth chart, but I'd imagine that he and Baker will end up splitting time fairly evenly.  They'll be joined by Le'Veon Bell, "who has the steel and speed of a Panzer tank" and has been one of the very pleasant surprises in the fall camp.  Bell is listed at 6'2", 230, so the temptation is strong to pigeonhole him as a goal line bruiser.  (Although, after last year's red zone strugglefest, a Jehuu Caulcrick-type bowling ball would be greatly appreciated.)  But, he's apparently relatively athletic, and could figure prominently into the discussion this year.  (I've never seen him play in person.  Here's hoping the optimistic reports are accurate.)

Second, the passing game should be even better this season.  If MSU can consistently air it out--and there's no reason to believe that we won't be able to--opposing teams obviously won't be able to stack the box with regularity, and our runners should have regular opportunities to get into the secondary.

Ah, but here's the catch: none of it will matter if the offensive line isn't creating holes for the running backs.  The right side of the line, obviously, will be all-new.  The WMU depth chart hasn't been released yet, but it seems probable that Chris McDonald will get the start at right guard; strong play from him is particularly important if our backs are going to have any success on the interior running plays of which Dantonio is so fond.  But so much of offensive line play is about cohesion and not individual effort, and we won't truly have a sense of this line's chemistry until the second or (more likely) third week of the season.

Also, I already mentioned Dantonio's fondness for boring, predictable runs up the middle.  We were all enormously frustrated by the lack of variety in the running game last year, and particularly in short-yardage situations.  Without some variation, the even solid blocking and running won't accomplish all that much.

Last year's rushing total, 1779, was good for sixth in the conference--but not exactly sixth with a bullet, as we trailed the 5th place team (Penn State) by 428 yards.  This season, the focus and playcalling emphasis will be on our talented quarterback and wide receivers, so we're not going to come close to the league leaders in rushing.  However, this is the internet, where we tend to judge the success or failure of things based on highly arbitrary criteria.  2000 yards rushing is a nice round number which, coincidentally, would represent a substantial-yet-realistic ground-game improvement over last year's effort.

So, what say you?  Do we get to 2000?

More photos » Morry Gash - AP

So, will we see more of these guys?

Browse more photos »

The conference division stories have obviously been dominated by the impending move of the OSU/U-M game from November to October (ZOMG!).  The mouthbreathing from both U-M and OSU partisans has been plentiful in the aftermath, but frankly, it's just not all that interesting to us, and, we reasonably assume, to fans of most other teams in the conference.  It'd be great if that game stays in the last week of the season--and there's no doubt that it's the most desirable option--but the world will still turn if THE GAME is in October, not November.

Rather, for Spartans, the most relevant upshot of the (seemingly inevitable) change is that Michigan will be the new season-closer.  For us, it's a clear upgrade: we move from ending the year with a contrived rivalry, to ending it with a real one.  Michigan would end up in a similar position to Texas and Oklahoma: playing their primary conference rival in the middle of the season, and ending the year with the in-state hate game.  In other words, it'll be interesting and fine, and the MSU/U-M game will take on some added significance on both sides.  Good deal for us.

But who will the other conference opponents be?  In the wake of Barry Alvarez's comment yesterday that Iowa and Wisconsin will be split up, predicting the members of each division has become today's most popular parlor game.  We do know a few things: assuming that Michigan and Ohio State do end up splitting up, Michigan and MSU will be in the same division.  Further, if Iowa and Wisconsin isn't going to be a yearly game, it figures that Iowa and Minnesota also won't be in the same division.  If Minnesota and Iowa were in the same division, Iowa and Wisconsin would be the natural protected rivalry, and Alvarez's comments wouldn't make much sense.  Also, more simply, most reports have Minnesota and Wisconsin in the same division.  So, that's that.  Also, it's likely that Illinois and Northwestern will remain paired in the same division, and Purdue and Indiana will be placed in the other.  In terms of historical success, each pair is the rough equivalent of the other, and this setup will allow those season-ending rivalry games to continue as such.

More, after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Cincinnati Finneytown offensive tackle/guard Donavon Clark committed to MSU today, becoming the 15th member of the Class of 2011, and the second offensive lineman to sign in a week.  The basics:

• 6'4, 295 lbs.
• Scout: 4 stars, #13 offensive guard nationally.
• Rivals: 3 stars, #50 offensive tackle nationally.
• ESPN: 3 stars, 78 rating, #47 offensive tackle nationally.
• Offers from: USC (!), Tennessee, Indiana, Minnesota, Pitt, West Virginia, NC State, Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, Cincinnati, and many others.  Ohio State apparently was interested but never offered.
• RCMB stalking thread here.

From Scout's Allen Trieu:

Clark is explosive and quick off the ball. He fires out low and gets into his man quickly. He shows good lower body strength and the ability to drive defenders downfield. He plays hard and mean and does a good job of finishing. He is raw in pass protection and needs work with his feet and hand placement. He has a good initial punch though, and has all the tools to become a good college guard once he improves his fundamentals.

The most striking thing about Clark's recruitment is clearly the USC offer.  While that program may not be what it recently was, a USC offer still means quite a bit.  Clark had a number of excellent suitors--apparently Tennessee was a strong contender for his services as well--and that alone makes you stand up and notice.

There's some difference of opinion as to what position Clark will play in college.  Rivals and ESPN see him as a tackle, while Scout--which rates him higher--projects him as a guard.  Clark is relatively tall, which ordinarily is a characteristic of interior linemen.  A quick scan of the projected football roster (which is sadly out-of-date at this point, hopefully to be updated sometime soon) and the fall practice depth chart suggests that guard may be the position of greater need going forward, though that could change if Henry Conway continues to have injury problems. 

Complicating matters further is the fact that some see Clark as a defensive tackle.  Sez Trieu: "Defensive Tackle is NOT out of the question. He's pretty good there too."  That same sentiment is repeated throughout the Buckeye Planet thread on Clark's recruitment.  For what it's worth, his high school coach sees him as a tackle:

Clark is expected to be an offensive tackle with the Spartans. [Coach] Chenault said he is also capable of being a guard.  "Donavon is a bulldozer," Chenault said.

For now, we're working under the assumption that Clark will be playing on offense.  So, our last two offensive line recruits have been a "beast" and a "bulldozer."  It's unclear exactly what Dantonio will need to do to keep up the hyperbolic analogy momentum--but whatever it is, we shouldn't necessarily put it past him.  Scout now ranks MSU's class of 2011 as the 19th best in the country, and second best in the Big Ten.

On Twitter today, I hypothesized this - that ten out of the 12 Big Ten fanbases do not care when the Michigan-Ohio State game is played.  Does it need to be played every year?  Most definitely.  However, I feel that the Big Ten has to look out for it's own interests here, and if it's making a few more dimes on the possibility of a Buckeye-Wolverine matchup, than by all means, change the schedule.  Truth be told, I didn't even watch the game last year, I was too busy tailgating the Penn State game.

But what say you: Do you care when Michigan-Ohio State is played?

Photo from the Grand Rapids Press.

View full size photo »

Well, this happened sooner than we expected:

"[Gholston] gives us another guy at defensive end," Dantonio said before practice. "He’s been toying with things back and forth -- you see him in pass rush drills and in linebacker drills. He came over and sort of poked me in the back on Thursday at Ford Field and said, ‘Hey, Coach, I want to become a defensive end permanently.’" [ . . . ]

"That was his decision, and that’s the way I wanted it to be," Dantonio said. "If he made that move, it needed to be his decision, or he’d still be a linebacker. I think he saw himself, as he continued to rush the passer, as a guy who could maybe help a little bit more in that area."

I still think Gholston may ultimately have more promise as a rushing linebacker -- and the move today obviously doesn't preclude the coaching staff from going that route in the future.  But for the moment being, the move makes quite a bit of sense, particularly if Will has designs on contributing this season (as I'm sure he does).  We're all aware that MSU is stacked at linebacker this year, with the best unit in the conference.  Gholston could have seen time as an outside linebacker in blitz packages or simply as a change of pace, but it seems relatively unlikely that he would have beaten out Eric Gordon and Chris Norman/Denicos Allen for substantial playing time.

Defensive end, however, is another matter entirely.  At the moment, Colin Neely and Tyler Hoover look to be the starters.  Neely did a nice job last season--the game ending sack at Purdue was a particularly memorable moment--but in the end, he only registered 3 sacks and 24 tackles.  Tyler Hoover brings substantial athletic ability and size (6'7", 270) to the other end position, but he is inexperienced.  The depth at the position isn't the greatest, either.  Adam Rittenberg noted today that the BTN analysts attending MSU practice last week weren't exactly blown away by the defensive line's performance (save for Jerel Worthy, obvs).  This comes after a season in which the line consistently struggled to pressure opposing quarterbacks, which necessitated linebacker blitzes and left the secondary hanging out to dry over and over again.

So, there is an opening and a need for an edge rusher, to say the least.  It's perhaps unreasonable to expect Gholston to step in and be the guy right away, but he was hyped for a reason (i.e., size, quickness, and strength in spades), by all accounts he's looked great in practice so far, and he's clearly not shying away from the challenge.  He's not going to be an every-down player at this point, but playing him at defensive end increases the chance that he'll be a substantial contributor here and now.  After a season in which the defensive personnel management and playcalling was deeply flawed, the coaching staff at least seems to be batting .500 so far this year.

[Addition: And as DP99 points out, most of the foregoing assumes that MSU will still be running some kind of 4-3 on a relatively regular basis.  Which I still think we will, for better or worse.]

On Friday, Hinsdale Central (IL) offensive lineman Jack Allen became the 14th member of MSU's 2011 recruiting class.  The basics:

• 6'2", 275 lbs.  4.8 40 time, 30" vertical, 320 bench, 450 squat.
• Chose MSU over primarily Iowa and Wisconsin.
• Scout: 3 stars, #7 center nationally.
• Rivals: 3 stars, #15 center nationally.
• ESPN: 3 stars, 78 grade, #10 center nationally.
• RCMB stalking thread here.

This is the first offensive line commit for MSU in the Class of 2011, much to the relief of many of us.  Reports indicate that Allen was a major priority for the coaching staff, and reviews of him have been quite positive.  Allen Trieu's scouting report:

Has excellent fundamentals. Plays with good leverage and has good footwork. Great drive blocker who gets into his man and finishes blocks strong. Shows the athleticism to pull and play in the second level. Has good balance and coordination in space. Is light right now and needs to add weight before he can play at the college level, but has the potential to be a long term starter in college.

He also called Allen "the real deal" in the RCMB thread.  ESPN mostly concurs with Trieu's assessment:

Allen is a smart, aggressive run blocker with the explosion and playing strength to get movement when blocking "0" technique defenders. Has the height and athleticism for the center position at the major level of competition; will need to add bulk to his frame over time [ . . . ]

And, comments from his high school coach:

"I think Jack's the best center in the state, and I don't think anybody's even close," DiMatteo said. "He's got the best combination of speed, athleticism, size, power. He's 14-0 in national wrestling tournaments, let's put it that way. He's a nasty dude." [ . . . ]

"Jack's a beast, man. I love Jack because he's the type of football player you want. He's a great kid. He comes from a great family, and he's just a killer on the football field. He's just a lot of fun. They don't come around like Jack Allen too often."

The nearly-universal sentiment is that Allen will need to put on some weight to succeed at MSU.  Scout currently lists him at 275 lbs., but Rivals measures him at only 262.  Big Ten nose guards weigh 50 pounds more than that; a corresponding weight gain seems to be in order.  However, Allen is only 6'2", which perhaps puts a ceiling on how bulky he can become.  He is an outstanding high school wrestler (ranked as the #5 heavyweight in the country by some reliable-looking website Google turned up), and so he may be purposely keeping his weight down a bit in order to stay mobile for wrestling season.  This obviously wouldn't be a concern at MSU, no matter how much Tom Minkel would like to have him.

But nonetheless, his technique seems to be good, and the fact that he is an excellent wrestler certainly speaks to his athletic ability.  It's also encouraging that Wisconsin and Iowa were interested in him: those schools always seem to turn average/high-average prospects into excellent offensive linemen.  If they were interested, it suggests that Allen has the raw tools to succeed at the position.

Center was a position of great need for the Spartans in this recruiting class, as starter John Stipek has only one season of eligibility remaining.  Thereafter, Nate Klatt--who was a highly-regarded recruit himself--figures to start at center for three seasons; Allen figures to back up Klatt as a freshman and sophomore (it seems that the depth chart at center is too thin for Allen to redshirt) and then start during his final two seasons [edit: or three, as witless chum points out in the comments].  Lawrence Thomas tends to draw the headlines in MSU's 2011 class, but Allen certainly has the chance to end up being the most impactful recruit of all.