The Wolverine: Covering University of Michigan Football and Sports
Issue link: https://comanpub.uberflip.com/i/1310365
12 THE WOLVERINE DECEMBER 2020 INSIDE MICHIGAN ATHLETICS The Four-Man Backfield Is Fine … If It Works By Austin Fox Michigan's four-man rota- tion worked beautifully in the season-opening win over Min- nesota, when all four members (sophomore Zach Charbonnet, redshir t sophomore Hassan Haskins, fifth-year senior Chris Evans and freshman Blake Corum) received at least four carries, and three of the four (Corum being the exception) found the end zone. Haskins ran for 82 yards and Charbonnet for 70, and the unit helped rack up 256 rushing yards on U-M's way to a 49-24 win. The rotation hasn't worked since, however, with no running back surpassing 56 yards in the next three games after Oct. 24. Michigan's offensive line de- serves plenty of blame for the rushing struggles, but head coach Jim Harbaugh choosing to ride the hot hand would likely mask some of the front five's deficiencies. An individual name doesn't necessarily need to be singled out while discussing those who deserve more carries, with the beneficiary simply being whoever is running the best in any given game. If no single running back emerges as the top dog in Michi- gan's offense, though, then Harbaugh should continue rotating backs until one does. Time To Settle On A Smaller Rotation, Even If It's Week By Week By Chris Balas Michigan has a legit four backs worthy of carries, but this isn't the first time in Wolverines history that's happened. There was an outstanding stable in the early 1990s, one that in- cluded Tyrone Wheatley, Jesse Johnson and Ricky Powers … but there was also a pecking order. Wheatley was No. 1, and then the hot hand in practice got the oppor tunity to see what he could do behind him. It's tough for a back to de- velop a rhythm without getting his carries and developing a "feel" for his offensive line, just as it is for a lineman to learn his back's nuances when they're not out there very long. We've seen that this year. Charbonnet ripped off a 70-yard touchdown at Minnesota and then carried only three times after that. Haskins aver- aged an incredible 7.9 yards per carry through three games but then received just one opportunity (which gained six yards) in game four against Wisconsin. Through four contests, the player with the most rushing attempts is quarterback Joe Milton, with 32. It's time to make this a true meritocracy. See which two guys have the best week of practice and give them a chance to get comfortable. POINT ❙ COUNTERPOINT SHOULD MICHIGAN CONTINUE ITS FOUR-RUNNING-BACK ROTATION? Through four games, redshirt sophomore Hassan Haskins led the Wolverines with 163 rushing yards on just 21 carries. PHOTO COURTESY MICHIGAN ATHLETICS KenPom.com recently released its preseason ratings for the upcoming 2020‑21 college basketball season, with Michigan being viewed among the nation's elite. The metric factors in last season's efficiency ratings and returning players on each club and has Juwan Howard's crew at No. 17 in the land. U‑M checked in at ninth nationally for adjusted offensive efficiency with a rating of 109.2. Adjusted offensive efficiency is defined as "an estimate of the offensive efficiency (points scored per 100 possessions) a team would have against the average D‑I defense." Iowa (No. 2) is the only Big Ten team ranked ahead of the Wolverines in that category heading into the season. Defensively, U‑M was tabbed at No. 31 nationally with an adjusted defensive efficiency score of 88, with the metric being defined as "an es‑ timate of the defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 possessions) a team would have against the aver‑ age D‑I offense." Big Ten teams in front of U‑M are Wisconsin (2), Ohio State (10), Rutgers (12), Indiana (17), Illinois (21) and Michigan State (28). — Clayton Sayfie COMPARING MICHIGAN BASKETBALL'S PREDICTED EFFICIENCY RATINGS TO YEARS PAST Overall Offensive Defensive Season Record Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency 2010-11 21-14 30th (+17.69) 39th (112.8) 37th (95.1) 2011-12 24-10 22nd (+17.52) 19th (114.3) 56th (96.8) 2012-13 31-8 4th (+27.86) 1st (121.9) 37th (94.0) 2013-14 28-9 12th (23.44) 3rd (123.9) 89th (100.5) 2014-15 16-16 74th (+9.55) 67th (110.0) 100th (100.5) 2015-16 23-13 50th (+14.15) 30th (114.6) 92nd (100.5) 2016-17 26-12 20th (+23.05) 4th (122.3) 69th (99.2) 2017-18 33-8 7th (+24.20) 35th (114.7) 3rd (90.5) 2018-19 30-7 6th (+28.32) 24th (114.5) 2nd (86.2) 2019-20 19-12 16th (+20.12) 20th (113.2) 28th (93.0) 2020-21* — 17th (+20.41) 9th (109.2) 31st (88.8) * Preseason ratings How do the Maize and Blue's marks compare to postseason ratings from years past? Here's how they've stacked up nationally over the last decade.