First Look: Michigan remaining opponents

I’ve already taken a look at the six common opponents between the state’s two Division-1 teams, so let’s see what’s in store on the remainder of Michigan’s schedule. You can see Detroit’s other opposition get the same treatment here.

Full tempo-free numbers available for all of Division 1 here.

Penn State

Fear the Nittany Lion!

Feb. 18 (@ Penn State)

2011

7-7 (4-2 CAA), #26 Laxpower

Penn State played a sloooooow brand of lacrosse last year, and they were a solid defensive team. The Nittany Lions struggled in the ride/clear game (their two worst phases of the game – maybe they need to work on their transition a bit more), resulting in a below-average possession percentage (No. 32) despite being better than .500 on faceoffs. Their numbers have all the look of a mediocre team, although strength of schedule makes them look a bit better.

This game will be Michigan’s first true away game in program history (I’ll be shocked if the Detroit game in Pontiac isn’t close to 50/50 fan support), a tough test for the young Wolverines.

Denver

90s-tastic background

Feb. 25 (@ Denver)

2011

15-3 (6-0 ECAC), #7 Laxpower

You may recal Denver from such events as “made it to the Final Four last year.” This was, and will continue to be, a good team under Bill Tierney. They had the country’s most efficient offense by a mile, adjusted for strength of schedule. Their defense was only just above average, but it only needed to be with the No. 15 possession percentage in the country and a well-oiled machine on the other side of midfield.

Given that Michigan’s pre-season struggles have been focused on bringing the defense up to a Division-1 level, facing one of the best offensive units in the land will be a serious challenge. This one could get ugly if Michigan can’t slow down the pace.

Air Force

Is the bird part of the lightning or being struck by it?

Feb. 26 (Denver)

2011

6-7 (3-3 ECAC), #42 Laxpower.

Air Force’s games overall were low-scoring, but it wasn’t because of a slow pace (a respectable No. 26). Instead, the Falcons were the opposite of what you like to see: a pretty good defensive team (although the adjusted ranking at No. 25 is much worse than raw at No. 13, so they played some pretty bad offenses last season) that is mostly-inept on offense. That makes for boring ball. Nearly everything about Air Force was middle-of-the-pack, which results in the near-.500 record they ended up achieving.

Michigan’s going to be playing their second day in a row – a rarity for Division-1 teams, but something they’re used to in the MCLA. That’s a particularly tough task in the high altitude of Colorado, which is unfortunate, because this could be one of the team’s best chances for a win in 2012.

Loyola

Fear the Greyhound!

March 7 (home)

2011

8-5 (4-2 ECAC), #22 Laxpower.

Loyola’s offense was bad, and defense was actually pretty good (No. 15 adjusted for schedule strength). They were good in possession, thanks to an above-average mark in all three factors – faceoffs, ride, and clear were all top-16 units in the country. They played a slow brand of lacrosse (which I guess is smart when you can dominate possession but not do a whole lot with it). Four of their eight wins came by a single goal, including a pair of overtime victories.

Loyola lived life on the margins last year: they had no big wins, and no big losses. Every game was played within a four-goal margin, including six total one-goal games (two of them losses).

Mount St. Mary’s

Their logo is a mountain. I have no jokes.

March 24 (home)

2011

9-6 (4-1 NEAC), #36 Laxpower.

Mount St. Mary’s was a dream team last year for lovers of offense. They had an elite offensive efficiency (No. 5 raw, No. 9 adjusted for strength of schedule) and an awful defense (No. 55 raw, No. 53 adjusted). If they played faster than No. 31 in the country, this would have been one of the nation’s most exciting teams to watch play. They could score seemingly at will – but so could their opponents. As a bonus, their clear was bad (No. 55) and their ride was decent (No. 26), so there were transition opportunities, despite a medium pace of play.

Good offensive teams are going to be a bugaboo for Michigan in year one. A team that’s not particularly good in other phases could help neutralize that advantage to a degree.

Harvard

Their mascot is a color. No fun.

March 31 (@ Harvard)

2011

10-6 (3-3 Ivy), #18 Laxpower.

The Ivy League is a strong one in lacrosse, and Harvard’s toughest games were all in-conference so keep that in mind. They were ranked in the high teens to low 30s in just about every metric (except pace, where they were the No. 11 team in the land in terms of speed), so they were consistent across the board. Their strengths were at the faceoff X (No. 19) and on the ride (No. 20), so their advantage in possession made up for a good-not-great efficiency margin.

Overall, Harvard is good at a lot of things, and excellent at none. A well-rounded team is probably hard to beat for a first-year program.

Rutgers

Dude will totally cut you with that letter T.

April 21 (@ Rutgers)

2011

6-9 (1-5 Big East), No. 38 Laxpower.

For a team that dominated possession (No. 9, and they actually outscored opponents on the year, too), Rutgers comes away with just a .400 record.

That’s mostly on account of winning big over really bad teams (winless Wagner and Saint Joseph’s, for example), and losing to the good teams they played. Their overall efficiency margin is solidly in the negative, and only a strong performance at the X (No. 10 in the country on faceoffs) kept their head above water for much of the year.

Rutgers wasn’t a good team last year, but under new leadership, that could certainly change.

Much more on all these teams as the relevant games approach. This is just a first look at all of them, with limited analysis.