Skip to main content

Meet the New Sheriff in Ann Arbor! (He's actually the old Sheriff)

Yesterday's announcement of yet another book on Michigan football by John U. Bacon got a lot of buzz on the internet.  While most people were focused on the accusations lodged by Harbaugh on so-called "cheaters," I was more interested on Bacon's comment that an entire chapter of the book is dedicated to the subject of how Harbaugh has changed the academic culture on the football team in response to past criticisms (some of which came from... Jim Harbaugh). 

Since Harbaugh arrived, I have been curious to track what changes he might make on the academic side of the football team.  The University has been criticized in the past for operating "safe harbor" programs in the Kinesiology and General Studies programs.  A detailed look into this SEC-Style Diploma Mill strategy can be found here.  

Over the past few years, I have periodically checked various on-line sources to see if any change was evident. To my surprise, what I found was that information about the declared major of UofM football players seemed to be disappearing from the public record (such as the official UofM athletic site).  So, it was essentially impossible to judge if any change has taken place.  Yesterday's announcement rekindled that curiosity.

But, the problem of a lack of information lead me down another data rabbit hole.  In this case, it occurred to me that there was one independent source that does provide data about declared majors of a selection of Big Ten players: The Academic All-BIg Ten Team, which the Big Ten Conference publishes in December. I found this list for 2018 to be particularly interesting.  My analysis of the data is found below.

On its face, if you just count the players on the list for football, the raw numbers look like this:

Northwestern = 59
Michigan = 47
Wisconsin = 37
Nebraska = 36
Iowa = 33
Illinois = 32
MSU = 30
(other schools: 17-29)

So, Northwestern is on top (no surprise) while the Harvard of Washtenaw County is in second.  Wow, Harbaugh must have really cleaned up academics in Ann Arbor! Let's call Mr. Bacon and get him to write another totally objective book on the subject!

But... not so fast.  Some of those names on the list don't sound too familiar...  Since I already have a database of Big Ten recruits back to 2007, I went ahead and cross-checked the All-Big Ten list with my list of players who signed with each school. If you only count players on this list, the data is now:

Northwestern = 33 (56% of the total)
Minnesota = 22 (56%)
Wisconsin = 18 (49%)
Michigan State = 16 (53%)
Michigan = 16 (34%)
(Other schools are between 8 and 15)

So, as you can see, two-thirds of the "football players" on Michigan's Academic All-Big Ten list in 2018 were not recruited out of high school.  (I should also note that I did correct for walk-ons like Cole Chewins and Jordan Glasgow that actually play.  They are counted above).  As you can also see, MSU and UofM had the same number of recruited players on the All-Big Ten list.

As for UofM's very low percentage, for comparison I would like to point out that the majority of Big Ten teams were over 40%.  Only Michigan (34%), Penn State (29%), and Nebraska (28%) were worse.  That said, the numbers for all the teams other than MSU and UofM may be a bit low, because I did not take the time to error check the list for alternate spellings (AJ Arcuri vs. A.J. Arcuri, for example) for the other Big Ten teams.  I wanted to at least get a little sleep last night...  So, Penn State and Nebraska might be a tad better.

Taking this one step further, of these 16 MSU and UofM players, how many are actually seeing the field?  As a part of my database, I try to track career starts as a metric.  This is a labor-intensive pain, but it is useful form time-to-time... like today.  Of the 16 players, here is the total sum of starts for both MSU and UofM:

MSU = 188 starts
UofM = 91 starts

MSU has more than doubled up UofM.  Furthermore, if you count the number of players who have more than 2 starts (obviously NOT a high bar to clear) you get:

MSU = 11 (37% of the total)
UofM = 6  (13% of the total)

And finally, here is a list of the players for each team with more than 2 starts, including their listed majors:

Michigan:
Devin Bush General Studies BGS   
Rashan Gary    General Studies BGS   
Donovan Peoples-Jones    LSA Undeclared     
Carlo Kemp    American Culture BA   
Noah Furbush    Space Engineering     
Kwity Paye    Health And Fitness BS   

MSU:
Khari Willis Community Governance And Advocacy 
Cole Chewins Finance 
Brian Lewerke Economics 
Jake Hartbarger Hospitality Business 
David Dowell Advertising Management 
Matt Sokol Marketing Research 
Luke Campbell Kinesiology 
Chase Gianacakos Marketing Research 
Grayson Miller Management 
Matt Morrissey Finance 
Rocky Lombardi Business 

As usual, the list for UofM is 50% General Studies and "Undeclared" while the list for MSU has variety of majors that real students actually take.

So, why does this all matter? On some level, it doesn't. After all getting good grades in real classes is not going to bring in anymore 'W's on Saturday.  However, it does matter when we consider the Giant Propaganda Machine that is the University of Michigan.  As we all know, UofM loves to portray itself as the athletic and academic powerhouse with high integrity and standards.  However, as they have proven time and time and time again, most of that is smoke and mirrors.  They clearly use the academic angle to snow recruits, and they seem to buy it hook, line, and sinker.  Just ask 2007 Jim Harbuagh.  I honestly thought that we were going to see change.  Based on the data above from just last December, I don't see any.

But John U. Bacon is claim that there is new Sheriff in town and big changes were made. Bacon tweeted out yesterday that there were only 6 General Studies majors in 2018, and 3x as many Engineering Majors. Oh, really?

So, I plan to get a look at a copy of Bacon's chapter and I am going to do a little fact-checking. I will reserve judgement until I can see what he actually wrote, but based on the analysis above, I think that I can guess UofM's new smoke-and-mirrors strategy.  

It seems clear that the new strategy is to find as many good students to be walk-ons as possible to pump up the numbers and hide or dilute the data for the players that actually play.  If nothing else, the "3x as many engineers" comment is a dead giveaway.  I did not take the time to go through the entire UofM roster, but I could only find 2 scholarship player and 2 walk-ons with a major listed as an engineering discipline.  (I also found 7 not 6 players with General Studies listed as their Major and a lot more with nothing listed or simply that they were enrolled in Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA)) As for UofM's project starters, I did cross check that last night.  The result? Only 7 players with a declared major, 3 of which are General Studies.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Green and White Helps You Fill Out Your Bracket (2026 Edition)

In my opinion, the middle of March is the absolute best time of the year. Over the past two weeks we have witnessed the exciting conclusion of several regular season conference races, followed by 31 conference tournaments. This past weekend, the full 68-team NCAA Tournament bracket was released. Sports fanatics are on the brink of Madness. Who will play the role of Cinderella in the story of the 2026 tournament? Will any survive to reach the second weekend? Which four teams will advance to Indianapolis on that first weekend in April? Which lucky team will end up cutting down the nets?  Over the years I have developed a set of analytics and computational tools to gain a better understanding of the mathematical underpinning of the NCAA Basketball Tournament. My methodology has a solid track record of correctly identifying upsets and sometimes doing more than that. In 2023, I used data to correctly predict that No. 4 seed UConn would win the National Title. There is no foolproof way t...

2025 College Football Analysis, Part Two: A Deep Dive into MSU's Schedule

In part one of this year's math-based preseason analysis of the college football season, we looked back at the 2024 season. Through that analysis, we learned about the historical accuracy of preseason polls (plus-or-minus 25 positions) and regular season win totals (plus-or-minus 2.5 wins). We also explored the impact of changes in ability, schedule, and luck. Now it is now time to shift focus to the 2025 season. Over the years I have developed and refined a way to simulate the entire college football season using schedule information and preseason rankings as the only inputs. I will soon go through the full details of what I learned from this exercise.  For today, I will focus exclusively on what it says about the Michigan State Spartans. We will take a close look at the Spartans' 2025 schedule from three different points of view. Opponent Overview The best place to start this analysis is with the simulation's inputs. Figure 1 below summarizes the preseason rankings (w...

After a strong swing through the state of Indiana, March beckons for Michigan State basketball

I have a bit of a confession to make. Back in December when I was reviewing the overall Big Ten schedule for the Michigan State Spartans, I noticed the back-to-back games at Purdue and at Indiana at the tail end of the conference campaign.  The games were spaced just three days apart, and the Spartan have struggled noticeably in both buildings historically. Outside of possibly the west coast trip in January, this two-game stretch looked like the most subtly challenge portion of the entire schedule. I believed that just getting a split in two games would be a success But the Spartans surprised both me and the college basketball world be rising to the challenge and winning both games. Other Big Ten teams were not as fortunate this weekend as both Purdue and Illinois picked up an additional loss. Table 1 below shows the updated enhanced Big Ten standings following the weekend's action. Table 1 : Enhanced Big Ten standing as of March 2. Michigan's win over Illinois on Friday night ...