It seems like a good time to begin to take a look at some of our more important opponents, and what better place to begin than Michigan?
I have to confess that I sort of like the Michigan fight song. I'll bet everyone on this Board can hum the tune. Now, rest assured, I have no love for the Wolverines, but hearing that fight song makes me think "Big Game." It's September, it's a big game, and in the national championship race one team is going to leave the field a pretender and the other a contender.
Imagine if you could -- just starting with 1978 when the teams resumed playing regularly -- put together an all-star team of the players who have played on both sides. At quarterback for N.D. Montana, Rice and McDougal would be my choices. At wide receivers I'd go with Tim Brown and the Rocket; I'd let Derrick Mayes, Joe Howard, Joey Getherall and Lake Dawson back them up. I'd let Tim return punts and the Rocket return kickoffs. (I've always liked Bo's response to the question of why the Rocket had been able to return two for TDs in the 1989 game; Bo said: "We don't have anybody on our team that fast.") The great players on the offensive line are too numerous to mention, but for a great unit, the 1993 line stands out in my mind. At tight ends how about Tony Hunter and Derek Brown? Oh, and running backs: How about Vagas Ferguson at tailback and Jerome Bettis at fullback? Think of the amazing back-ups: Edwards, Denson, Becton, the Brooks brothers, Culver, Watters, Pinkett, Phil Carter and Jim Stone. On defense, here are some linebackers to consider: Bob Crable, Mike Stonebreaker, Ned Bolcar and Demetrius DuBose. Defensive linemen: Chris Zorich, Bryant Young, Anthony Weaver, Frank Stams, Jim Flanigan would all make the team. Defensive backfield: Dave Duerson, Todd Lyght, Bobby Taylor, John Krimm and Jeff Burris would all be on my squad. Lou can be the head coach and Devine the defensive coordinator. And if N.D. is down by one late in the game and heading into the wind, the breeze will stop and on to the field will trot Harry Oliver, and . . . well, you know how that one ends. I'm sure I've missed some great players and I'm not trying to argue that these are the only ones who should play, but one could put together quite a squad.
And let's not overlook Michigan. If I think about all the great players who have played there since 1978 -- Anthony Carter, Tyrone Wheatley, Desmond Howard, Charles Woodson, Brian Griese and Elvis Grbac, just for starters -- it's clear that the Wolverines could put together a great team.
So, it's a big game and a big series. Let's look at it in a little more detail.
Michigan leads the all-time series 17-11-1. However, the series has really had three phases. From 1887 to 1909 the teams played 9 times. Michigan won the first 8 and the Irish finally got off the snide with an 11-3 win at Notre Dame in 1909. The teams didn't play again until 1942 and 1943 when they split two games. Then in 1978 the series resumed in earnest. The teams played 18 times from 1978 to 1999 and the Irish hold a slender 9-8-1 advantage in this latter phase. And, of course, the teams begin playing again in 2002.
The most recent series has been every bit as competitive as the record would indicate. In those 18 games, Michigan has averaged 20.8 points and N.D. 20.1. Michigan's average margin of victory has been 8 points and N.D.'s 6.7. Thirteen of the 18 games the final margin has been 8 points or fewer.
Several of them have been decided by huge plays late in the game. Bob Crable blocked a last second UM field goal in 1979 to preserve a 12-10 win and the next year Harry Oliver dropped a 51-yard field goal over the crossbar to lift N.D. to an improbable 29-27 win; Oliver's field goal capped off a frantic drive led by freshman QB Blair Kiel who took the Irish from their end of the field to the Michigan 34 in about 45 seconds, all answering a Michigan touchdown scored on a deflected pass. Stonebreaker intercepted a Grbac pass in the endzone in the middle of the 4thquarter in 1990 that prevented what would have been a killer Michigan touchdown and set up a 28-24 win. Chuck Gillette missed a field goal for UM at the end of the 1988 game that allowed N.D. to escape with a 19-17 win; had Gillette made that kick, there would've been no national championship for N.D. that year. In 1991, N.D. rallied from a 17-0 deficit to cut the margin to 17-14 and looked like they might pull another one out, but Desmond Howard was too much for them, and UM won 24-14. The closest things to blowouts in the series have been N.D.'s 25-7 loss in 1981 and N.D.'s 26-7 victory in 1987. So, you get the idea, this is a competitive series.
Now, let's look at an interesting effect of the series on both teams. In the 10 years since 1978 that N.D. has either tied or beaten Michigan, N.D.'s combined record for those seasons is 93-22- 2 (.803), which works out to 9.64 wins per 12 games. In the 8 years that N.D. has lost to Michigan, N.D.'s combined record is a mediocre 52-42-1 (.553), which works out to 6.63 wins per 12. In other words, the difference between beating Michigan or losing to them is 3 games in either direction. Of course, the explanation could be that the N.D. teams that won the games were just inherently better, so they could be expected to go on to better seasons. The closeness of the games, however, undercuts that theory to some degree. Nor are the N.D. wins and losses closely associated with any one coach: Devine was 2-1; Faust was 1-2; Holtz was 5-3-1 and Davie was 1-2, so it's not all "good era" versus "bad era."
Moreover, if we look at the other side of the coin -- Michigan's records -- we don't see nearly such a dramatic effect. In the 9 years Michigan has beaten or tied N.D., Michigan's record is 89- 16-4 (.835), which works out to 10.01 wins per 12 games. In the 9 years Michigan has lost to N.D., Michigan's record is 80-28 (.741), which works out to 8.89 wins per 12 games. For Michigan, then, the effect is what you'd expect to see for such close games: the difference between winning and losing is about one game.
Part of the explanation may be the goals of each team. The game is always played early in the year, and for a team like N.D. that has often be focused on the national championship, a Michigan loss is an enormous blow, but a Michigan victory is a major springboard forward, because it puts an important and nationally prominent foe behind the Irish. Michigan, of course, cares about national championships, but also has the as-important goal of winning the Big 10 and going to the Rose Bowl. While a loss to N.D. probably takes them out of the running for a national championship, it does nothing to damage their Rose Bowl hopes. So, apparently, if the Wolverines lose to N.D. they get over it more quickly than when the shoe is on the other foot.
Now, since we haven't played the Wolverines in a little bit, let's look at what they've been up to and try to spot some long-term trends. First, Michigan continues to recruit well, at least according to the services. In 1998, SuperPrep had Michigan #1 and Lemming had them #2 (N.D. was #3 in both). In 1999, Superprep had Michigan #4 and Lemming had them #8 (N.D. was #8 and #3). In 2000 neither service had them in the top 10 (N.D. was #8 in Lemming), but in 2001 they were #3 and #2 (N.D. missed both top 10s), and in 2002 Lemming had Michigan #9 (I don't have SuperPrep's rankings for 2002, N.D. was #11 in Lemming).
Breaking Michigan down statistically, however, uncovers a couple of surprises. Here are some key statistics starting with 2001 and working backwards:
2001 (8-4)
Points per game: U.M.: 26.7 Opp.: 19.8
Yards per rush: U.M.: 3.6 Opp.: 2.5
Yards per pass: U.M. 6.4 Opp.: 6.6
Yards per play: U.M.: 4.9 Opp.: 4.5
Michigan run/pass ratio 54.4%/45.6%
2000 (9-3)
Points per game: U.M.: 33.7 Opp.: 19.1
Yards per rush: U.M.: 4.8 Opp.: 3.8
Yards per pass: U.M. 8.6 Opp.: 6.9
Yards per play: U.M.: 6.2 Opp.: 5.3
Michigan run/pass ratio 62.8%/37.2%
1999 (10-2)
Points per game: U.M.: 27.6 Opp.: 18.1
Yards per rush: U.M.: 3.2 Opp.: 3.3
Yards per pass: U.M. 7.3 Opp.: 7.2
Yards per play: U.M.: 5.2 Opp.: 5.0
Michigan run/pass ratio 51.4%/48.6%
1998 (10-3)
Points per game: U.M.: 27.6 Opp.: 18.1
Yards per rush: U.M.: 3.8 Opp.: 3.1
Yards per pass: U.M. 7.3 Opp.: 6.4
Yards per play: U.M.: 5.3 Opp.: 4.4
Michigan run/pass ratio 56.6%/43.4%
1997 (12-0)
Points per game: U.M.: 26.8 Opp.: 9.5
Yards per rush: U.M.: 3.9 Opp.: 2.7
Yards per pass: U.M. 7.5 Opp.: 4.9
Yards per play: U.M.: 5.2 Opp.: 3.7
Michigan run/pass ratio 62.8%/37.2%
1996 (8-4)
Points per game: U.M.: 23.1 Opp.: 15.3
Yards per rush: U.M.: 3.9 Opp.: 3.0
Yards per pass: U.M. 7.6 Opp.: 5.6
Yards per play: U.M.: 5.4 Opp.: 4.2
Michigan run/pass ratio 60.2%/39.8%
The biggest surprise to me is how often Michigan's running attack has been anemic. If we take 4.0 per carry to be a sort of "Mendoza line" with regard to rushing attacks, the Wolverines have made this level only twice since 1996. A consequence of this has been that they have thrown the ball with much greater frequency that I had imagined that they did. The average ratio for NCAA Division I-A teams is 55% rushes and 45% passes. Only twice -- one in their national championship year of 1997 and then again in 2000 -- has Michigan really been a run oriented team. In 1999, when the Wolverines could only muster 3.2 per carry, they were a quite pass- oriented team. Stanford, by way of comparison, ran a little over 60% of the time for 4.4 per carry last year. N.D. ran about 70% of the time for 3.9 per carry.
On the other hand, Michigan's defenses have usually been quite good, particularly on run defense, and the 1997 defense was unbelievably good.
Michigan will be a quality opponent again this year, but they may not look exactly like the Wolverines of the days of yore.