text:
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Michigan Hockey: Notre Dame Preview
Michigan Hockey: ND preview
#10 Michigan (14-8-4) at #7 Notre Dame (13-8-3)
1/20/12 7:35pm NBC Sports Network
1/21/12 7:35pm CBS Sports Network
There is one thing that makes Notre Dame different then every team we have played so far. They have a lot of highlight videos and they weren't shot with a camera someone borrowed from their mom.
Forward Overview:
Name | Position | Scoring Line | SOG | +/- | PIMS | BLKS |
T.J. Tynan | Center | 9-22-31 | 38 | -1 | 22 | 2 |
Anders Lee | Center | 14-8-21 | 95 | +2 | 18 | 3 |
Riley Sheahan | Center | 7-14-21 | 77 | 0 | 14 | 14 |
Billy Maday | Right Wing | 6-12-18 | 35 | -1 | 16 | 6 |
Austin Wuthrich | Right Wing | 5-7-12 | 38 | +3 | 26 | 10 |
Bryan Rust | Right Wing | 5-4-9 | 46 | +3 | 12 | 9 |
Jeff Costello | Left Wing | 3-6-9 | 34 | -5 | 39 | 4 |
Michael Voran | Right Wing | 4-3-7 | 38 | -3 | 6 | 6 |
Patrick Gaul | Center | 2-5-7 | 22 | -1 | 4 | 10 |
Notre Dame comes into the series with the nations 27th best scoring attack, but nothing really stands out out from the offense of the Fighting Irish on paper except the center domination. On film is a different story, the set offense is really bad but the breakout is outstanding.
The other thing they are really good at is taking advantage of opponents mistakes, cutting down neutral ice turnovers is a must for the game. This is how they win games, the offense is average, the defense is terrible but they still win because of the ability to turn a mistake into a goal.
Key matchup for this game is getting simple, get back fast and pay attention. It sounds simple but it's something we struggled with most of the season, so we might see Red scale back the forecheck if Notre Dame is cracking it early.
Defensive Overview:
Name | Scoring Line | SOG | +/- | PIMS | BLKS |
Robbie Russo | 3-9-12 | 32 | -1 | 8 | 10 |
Sean Lorenz | 2-10-12 | 19 | -1 | 6 | 24 |
sam Calabrese | 2-9-11 | 22 | -2 | 4 | 12 |
Stephen Johns | 2-4-6 | 35 | +4 | 61 | 26 |
Shayne Taker | 2-2-4 | 18 | -2 | 2 | 12 |
Led by robbie Russo and Sam Calabrese, Notre Dame enters this weekend showdown with the nations 27th ranked defense. To put it into perspective as to how bad that is, Michigan's defense at the worst point in the season never got lower then 15th. Stephen Johns is the only ND blueliner who has a positive +/- but he spends too much time in the box to really do anything, the rest of the guys just look lost.
Key matchup for this game: Just shoot the puck, with major alignment issues and a goalie who gives up rebounds the scoring chances will be there. The Northeastern team who took us down 4-1 at Yost went to Compton and smoked the Irish 9-2 the next game.
Name | GP | MIN | GA | GAA | SV | SV% | W-L |
Mike Johnson | 18 | 936:46 | 41 | 2.63 | 322 | .887 | 7-6-3 |
Steven Summerhays | 10 | 505:00 | 23 | 2.73 | 191 | .893 | 6-2-0 |
Why not hug the post?
After posting great numbers his sophomore season Mike Johnson was supposed to be among the nations elite goaltenders, what happened? You could blame the defense but this isn't all on them, its not their fault when the goalie aligns improperly. Neither netminder is playing great hockey, but there is a good chance we could see both Johnson and Summerhays this weekend.
The key matchup is the same as for defense, just shoot the puck. Good things will happen if the puck is getting to the net, but this is a streaky team so getting on them early is important.
Michigan Overview:
Name | Scoring Line | SOG | +/- | PIMS | BLKS |
Chris Brown | 9-16-24 | 58 | +13 | 37 | 14 |
Alex Guptil | 12-12-24 | 75 | +16 | 27 | 8 |
David Wohlberg | 11-13-22 | 58 | +16 | 20 | 13 |
Phil Di Giuseppe | 8-7-15 | 73 | +12 | 12 | 12 |
A.J. Treais | 8-7-15 | 79 | +16 | 12 | 14 |
Travis Lynch | 6-7-13 | 41 | +7 | 4 | 13 |
Lindsay Sparks | 5-8-13 | 24 | +2 | 10 | 4 |
Derek DeBlois | 5-6-11 | 39 | +7 | 10 | 19 |
Red has worked his magic again, he has managed to get quality defense out of a group who couldn't play a lick of it for half a season. The re-emergence of Kevin Lynch helped and Andrew Sinelli
has been a nice addition, but was the answer benching Lindsay Sparks? Maybe not but it definitely helped, and with him getting less time others have made their presence on the ice felt.
It also looks like the lines are settled which is a major plus. Coming into the year this team had so many freshman that they didn't know who would be best on which line, but it seems like it has been figured out.
Defensive Overview:
Name | Scoring Line | SOG | +/- | PIMS | BLKS |
Lee Moffie | 3-17-20 | 48 | +20 | 12 | 25 |
Mac Bennett | 3-12-15 | 52 | +8 | 8 | 34 |
Greg Pateryn | 2-10-12 | 65 | +9 | 30 | 38 |
Mike Chiasson | 1-8-9 | 15 | +10 | 23 | 38 |
Kevin Clare | 2-5-7 | 18 | +9 | 35 | 35 |
Brennan Serville | 0-7-7 | 13 | +8 | 2 | 19 |
Jon Merrill | 0-4-4 | 6 | +6 | 0 | 5 |
Four games later we are still talking about how important the addition of Jon Merrill is and its still amazing how much one player changes things.
The forechecking has been ridiculous and the biggest key to our success, and when the Buckeyes did gain the zone most of the shots they took came from the side boards or other low percentage areas.
One thing that has been overshadowed by the recent events is how great Lee Moffie has been playing. He has been a solid performer all season, but when the team needed someone to elevate their game he stepped up in a major way.
Name | GP | MIN | GA | GAA | SV | SV% | W-L |
Shawn Hunwick | 25 | 1454:57 | 54 | 2.23 | 670 | .925 | 14-7 |
It's been so long since we saw what Hunwick could do with a functional defense, yeah it's awesome. When he's on his game like that we aren't going to lose very many times. Stop hitting forwards after the whistle, other than that there isn't much else to say.
Although Michigan is red hot right now, at some point we have to cool down, and Notre Dame is a team whos playing style gives them an edge over us. It's weird how a team with such average stats wins so many games, but I feel like the Irish will take game one before Michigan bounces back saturday at Compton for the split.
Minimum Playoff Size Need, Part II
After doing the first four years of this I took a break, but I've finally returned to it.
To start this one off I want to discuss my purpose and process for a moment. This is not a pure numbers survey, that's the bailiwick of The Mathlete. My goal is to approach the championship saying "What are the fewest teams that have a resume that entitles them to have a shot at the national championship?". So my human bias as an author does creep in.
One thing I want to stress, if I'm trying to do this from a need based approached. What is the minimum number of teams we need. Where can we draw a line and say: Everyone on one side of this line has a resume weaker than the people on the other side. Not what we as fans want to see. Basically if at the end of the season we do resume voting for just that season, how many teams took care of business in the regular season and should have a shot at holding the crystal ball.
To recap the results from last time, I found the people on the stronger side of the line was:
- 1998: 4 teams
- 1999: 2 teams
- 2000: 4 teams
- 2001: 4 teams
From that review I suggested that a four team playoff looks like the minimum you need. I did not find a season where you had a 5th team with a resume that made them worthy (although we come close in 1998 with A&M). I also did not find a season where you'd have trouble finding 4 teams to round the playoff out (although 1999 comes close when you have to settle for two loss Wisconsin or Alabama as the 4th, both teams choked on a cupcake and the #3 team only has one loss).
From the above as I go I'm using the hypothesis that: "In any given season you can eliminate two of the six auto qualifying conference champs and have a nice four team field." As I go forward I'll see if this gets supported or rejected and what the rising strength of the MWC does to this (because then I'm looking at rejecting 3 from 7 instead of 2 from 6). At least Notre Dame always sucks, so I don't have to worry about them.
Championship Game: #2 Ohio State defeats #1 Miami
Who Else Had A Claim:
Miami: Finishes the season 12-0. So they are undefeated and get the immunity idol. Miami beats two ranked teams in conference play and two ranked teams in OOC play (FSU and Florida). That's a nice schedule and they come out undefeated.
Ohio State: Undefeated as well. They defeat one ranked team in OOC play (Washington State) and three ranked Big Ten teams.
ACC: Maryland finishes ranked #13 and 11-3. The lose to ranked FSU teams and lose to an unranked Notre Dame squad in their season opener. That Notre Dame squad though finishes 10-3/#17 though. Florida State actually wins the division despite being 9-4. FSU goes 7-1 in division play (losing to NC State). Three of FSU's four losses are to good teams (Miami, ND, and NC State). NC State also finishes the season 11-3 and ranked, with losses too Georgia Tech, Maryland, and Virginia.
I can't really see arguing how anything out of this mess of teams has a resume to compete with a pair of undefeated conference champs. So I'm discarding the ACC
Big 12: Oklahoma finishes off the season 11-2 and wins the B12. They get five ranked wins over four teams (had to play Colorado twice) and losses to A&M and OSU. Some years this would be enough, but not in a year with two undefeated teams that each have four ranked wins.
PAC10: A 10-2 WSU and a 10-2 USC end up at the top of the conference. USC loses to WSU and a ranked KSU early in the year. WSU loses to Ohio State, Washington and then gets defeated by OU in the Rose Bowl. The PAC10 is like the ACC, where multiple teams had a chance to seize the day, win out, and finish the season with a good resume. They did't though.
SEC: Georgia wins the SEC, but a lose in Nov to #22 Florida robs them of an undefeated season. They end the season with four wins over ranked teams and defeat FSU in the Sugar Bowl for a fifth ranked win.
Independents/MWC: TCU and ND have decent years. The Domers beat four ranked teams but do trip against Boston College and lose to USC. TCU destroys almost everything in its path, but chokes on San Jose State (and loses its bowl game to Southern Mississippi). TCU's weak MWC schedule definitely haunts them here, along with the fact that two other teams go undefeated.
The Verdict on 2002:
This could have been an ugly year for selection. Maryland, FSU, NC State, OU, USC, Georgia, Washington State, Notre Dame, and maybe even TCU all end the season a couple of scores away from having the resume needed to play in the BCS Title Game.
The BCS is saved from too much controversy thanks to Miami and tOSU finishing out with four ranked wins each and no losses. Had either of those teams lost, then Georgia has a claim. In a four team system that would leave OU and Washington State with about equal claim to the fourth game. Notre Dame is right behind them (although through the transitive property WSU > ND). I'd also imagine some people making a case for the one loss TCU, but they do lack ranked wins.
This is a results based system though, so I'd say the final ruling is two teams.
Nice ink Maurice.
Championship Game: #2 LSU defeats #1 Oklahoma
Note: This was the year the AP gave the title to USC and the 21-14 snoozefest of LSU vs OU.Who Else Had A Claim:
Oklahoma: Didn't actually have a claim. They didn't win their conference. They defeat three ranked teams in conference play, but lose to #12 KSU in the title game (KSU 35, OU 7). If you don't win your conference, you don't play for the national title. So OU is gone.
LSU: Defeats 4 ranked teams, but losses by 12 points to an unranked Florida team. Florida ends 8-5 and ranked at the end of the season, so that doesn't look too bad. Winning the SEC and only have one loss is fairly good, but lets see if anyone has anything better:
ACC: Florida State loses to a ranked Miami team (twice, they had to play them in their OOC schedule and in the Orange Bowl, urgh). FSU also loses to Clemson by 16 points (Clemson ends the year ranked). The following week they need 2 OTs to beat NC State (who finishes 8-5 and unranked). FSU's only ranked win is over Florida. FSU also beats Maryland early in the season before Maryland is ranked (Maryland finishes 10-3). So FSU finishes with two losses, but they do beat the team that beats LSU. Lets see what other conferences have to offer in their champion.
B12: A three loss KSU (complete with a loss to Marshall) beats OU down in the championship and wins the conference. But two of KSU's three losses are to unranked teams. Their third is to a ranked Texas outfit. They also beat ranked Nebraska and OU. What else do we have.
Big East: Miami finishes the season with losses to Tennessee (10-3, #15) and and Virginia Tech (8-5). They do beat Florida who in turn had beaten LSU.
Big Ten: Michigan finishes off the year with two loses. A four point loss to Oregon and a three point loss to Iowa. We defeat five ranked teams and then lose by two scores to USC. A 10-2 Ohio State finishes off the season ranked ahead of us, but we beat them so we have the tie breaker. As a side note I still remember chanting: "Capitol One Bowl!" at the tOSU fans as they left. Anyway Michigan finishes with two losses to ranked teams (although Oregon does not finish the reason ranked) and wins over five ranked teams (although by the end of the year MSU was not ranked).
PAC10: USC is a soulless killing machine, aside from Cal. They lose to Cal early in the season (in triple OT). Their biggest problem is a weak schedule. Their ranked games are Auburn and Washington State. Plus of course a two touchdown victory over a Michigan in the Rose Bowl.
Independents/MWC: A two loss Utah. They lost to Texas A&M and New Mexico State. They defeat a ranked Oregon (Oregon does not finished ranked). Considering the resumes of the other conference champions, I'm not really high on Utah.
The Verdict on 2003:
This whole season is a mess. LSU has the strongest resume, but it really doesn't separate them from the pack. After them you have a mess of teams like USC with only one loss, but only two ranked victories. Then there is Michigan at two losses but more ranked victories. Miami, KSU, and FSU all have slightly weaker resumes in terms of ranked teams defeated, but they aren't terrible.
This is definitely a season where people with different criteria will select different teams. Personally I'd say three teams have legit claims: LSU, Michigan, and USC.
This is why MSU didn't finish the season ranked.2004/2005 BCS:
Championship Game: #1 USC defeats #2 Oklahoma (vacated)
Who Else Had A Claim:
USC: Undefeated, soulless killing machine yet again. Solid resume. No issues with their selection.
OU: Undefeated manages to win their division this year. Solid resume. They're in.
Note: The Big East gets much less impressive starting this year, due to the good teams bailing to the ACC.ACC: Virginia Tech finishes off the season 10-2. They open the season against USC and only loss by a single touchdown. They also lose by one point to an unranked NC State team (who finishes 5-6). They defeat ranked WVU, Virginia, and Maryland teams. They lose to Auburn by 3 in their bowl game. A solid showing all around, although two loses are not so good when you have multiple undefeated teams in play.
Big East: Four conference co-champions. Including a 6-6 Syracuse (4-2 in conference play) team. I'm sorry but when a 6-6 is conference co-champ, no. Just no. (9-3 Boston College is the best of the lot).
Big Ten: Michigan finishes off 10-2. Losses to Notre Dame (who goes 6-6) and to Ohio State (who finishes up ranked but 8-4 overall). When we play them Purdue and Minnesota are ranked, but they do not finish the season ranked. We defeat an unranked Iowa who does finish the season ranked. Michigan losses to Texas by one point. We're in the same boat as Virginia Tech.
SEC: Auburn is undefeated. They beat four ranked teams in the regular season and a fifth in their bowl. All ranked teams are in the Top 15.
Independent/MWC: Utah is undefeated. They do not play a ranked team.
The Verdict on 2004:
If you had just two undefeated teams, this would be easy and a year you only need two to settle it all up. As it stands you have a clear Top 3 of USC, OU, and Auburn. following them up you have Utah (Point: They are undefeated. Counterpoint: They played a shit schedule) and the two loss ACC and B10 teams (Point: Stronger schedule than Utah. Counterpoint: Two losses a piece).
So I'm calling three as the final verdict here in terms of where I can draw the line of "everyone after this line has a weaker resume".
Any excuse to link to Marlin Jackson
Championship Game: Texas defeats USC
Note: USC's official record for this is now 0-1. Alabama also gets itself in trouble and now as a record of 0-2. Ah vacated wins…Who Else Had A Claim:
USC: Soulless killing machine. Defeats 5 ranked teams. Undefeated. Legit claim.
Texas: Undefeated. Defeats 3 ranked teams. Legit claim.
ACC: A four loss FSU team wins the ACC championship game. Had VT taken care of business a 10-1 VT team would have emerged from the ACC as the victor. Instead a four loss team does. No sale on FSU.
Big East: WVU is in fine form with a special someone at the helm. They lose to Virginia Tech early in the season (who finishes out 11-2 for the year). WVU suffers from three issues. First they start the season unranked. Secondly they lose a game early on, which means they are not ranked until the first weak of November. Finally the only ranked team they play is Louisville. They defeat Georgia in their bowl by three points.
Big Ten: Penn State finishes off 11-1. So close, yet so far. They defeat three ranked teams but loss to an unranked Michigan team (who finishes up 7-5). Thank you Super Mario.
SEC: Georgia wins the SEC with two losses. Both were to ranked teams. Georgia defeats four ranked teams. As a side note, had LSU won the SEC Title game, LSU would have come out of the SEC with only one loss and wins over four ranked teams.
Independent/MWC: TCU opens the season strong with a win over ranked Oklahoma. They then lose to SMU the following week. They play no one else who is ranked and finish off the season with a three point win over Iowa State in their bowl.
The Verdict on 2005:
Once again the BCS benefits from the fact only two teams went undefeated. You have someone drop a game here or there and suddenly selection gets really ugly really fast.
Final verdict is two.
Super Mario
The Summary So Far:
- 1998: 4 teams
- 1999: 2 teams
- 2000: 4 teams
- 2001: 4 teams
- 2002: 2 teams
- 2003: 3 teams
- 2004: 3 teams
- 2005: 2 teams
It appears every year you never have more four conference champions who cannot be separated from the others by the virtue of their resume. It so far you can throw out at least 3 of the 7 (counting the MWC).
What is different in this set of years though is when we have three teams there is now a problem selecting a fourth. In 2003 there is three times basically tied for fourth. The same in 2004. In 2002 and 2005, had one of the undefeated teams lost, a can of worms also would have been opened.
If we have a 4 team playoff:
In 2002 and 2005 there are multiple teams who can point to the teams that got the #3 and #4 seeds and complain they are equal to thos eteams. In 2003 and 2004 there are multiple teams who can point to the team that got the #4 seed and complain.
If you want complete fairness you go with a 6 team playoff to avoid this. The other possible response is to say to WVU: "Why yes you are comparable to PSU/Georgia However your resume is not comparable to that of USC or Texas. If you wanted to avoid getting screwed by the polls, go undefeated like Texas/USC did." It all depends on what you like.
If you go with a 6 team playoff:
This era (2002 through 2005) goes a lot smoother. However…
In 1999/2000 you're letting in two loss teams from the Big Ten and SEC as your 4 and 5 seeds. Your sixth seed is likely #10 Marshall, the undefeated MAC champion (Stanford wins the PAC with 4 losses). In 2000/2001 you're letting less three loss teams from the Big Ten and SEC in to your playoff. Ugh. (Or you're recycling teams who game in second in their conference.)
If you go above 6:
You're likely letting all those teams who choked in their conference championship back in. There aren't enough quality opponents coming out of the smaller conferences to really flush out a bracket, so some teams are getting a second shot. At that point we're not allowed to be outraged about Alabama getting a do over, but we can be outraged about not getting a do over against tOSU. Pick your poison on that one.
Also the 1999/20001 bracket and 2000/2001 brackets would look terrible.
Closing Up:
I still have 2006 to the present to go, but so far is is what I'm seeing from the review:
A 4 team system works better for the first four years. It keeps you from having to seeding pretty bad teams into the playoff or seeding in people who did not win their conference.
In the next four years, a 4 year system does not leave a conference champ with a really strong resume out in the cold. It seems you can draw a cut off point at the #2 or #3 seed and say "Everyone who comes after this team has an inferior resume." You then end up with multiple teams squabbling for that last spots. A six birth playoff solves this.
Up Next: 2006 and beyond….
Eat Dinner with Coach Carr, Coach Hoke, Dhani Jones, and Mike Martin
Thank you to Brian for allowing me to post this. I hope this interests the MGoBlog community.
I am a member of a sponsored student organization at Michigan called Appreciate + Reciprocate. We are a group of University of Michigan students that gives back to Ann Arbor and surrounding communities through service and fundraising. All of our fundraising efforts directly benefit the LSA Emergency Student Aid Fund for students in extreme financial crises.
Each year, Appreciate + Reciprocate holds a benefit dinner and silent auction to raise money for the fund. The benefit dinner is open to the public and tickets for this year's dinner are on sale now. Details are located below:
Date: March 28, 2012
Location: Jack Roth Stadium Club (East Tower of Michigan Stadium)
Speakers: Coach Lloyd Carr, Coach Brady Hoke, Dhani Jones, and Mike Martin
Tentative Program for the Event:
6:00pm Appetizers, Meet & Greet
7:00pm Dinner Begins
7:45pm Keynote Speeches
8:45pm Silent Auction Announcements
9:00pm Event ConcludesTickets:
Students - $50
Regular Seating - $100
Premium Seating - $200
Silent auction items will include a game of 1 on 1 basketball with former Michigan Basketball team captain CJ Lee, and a tour of the new Player Development Center with Assistant Men's Basketball Coach Bacari Alexander. More items will be added as the event approaches.
For more information, or to purchase tickets, please visit our website at umichappreciate.org.
*Table sponsorships for local businesses are available. Please see our website for contact information to receive pricing and availability.
Enough with the ESPN Rankings Bashing
The most irritating refrain I hear constantly on this board is that ESPN does horrible recruiting rankings. As I have maintained time and again, that just simply isn't the case. There are objective ways you can evaluate the accuracy of the various sites' player evaluations (all-conference, NFL draft position, etc.). Those analyses are useful but I think the most in-depth way I can look at rankings is to study, in retrospect, the evaluations of players with which I am very familiar. Under that theory, below I am going to provide data on the evaluation of Michigan players from the classes of 2009 and 2008. Why 2008 and 2009? In most cases enough time has passed that you can make a judgment about how good a player turned out to be. I think this data shows that ESPN does often zig when Rivals/Scout zag, but ESPN is hardly inferior to the other two.
I am going to present tables that show the rankings for the 2009 recruiting class broken down two ways.
First, star rating and position rating. With regard to "star rating": for Rivals, I am using the more detailed point system, and for ESPN the more detailed numerical rating. For positional ranking, note that Rivals breaks out players into more categories so sometimes their ranking will look lower as a number.
2009 | Rivals | Scout | ESPN | Rivals (pos) | Scout (pos) | ESPN (pos) | ||
William Campbell | DT | 6.1 | ***** | 79 | 5 | 6 | 21 | |
Justin Turner | DB | 6 | ***** | 80 | 3 | 3 | 21 | |
Tate Forcier | QB | 5.9 | **** | 81 | 5 | 15 | 14 | |
Jeremy Gallon | ATH | 5.9 | *** | 77 | 11 | 45 | 80 | |
Craig Roh | DE | 5.9 | **** | 83 | 7 | 8 | 4 | |
Je'Ron Stokes | WR | 5.9 | **** | 82 | 14 | 17 | 8 | |
Vladimir Emilien | DB | 5.8 | *** | 80 | 14 | 42 | 21 | |
Cameron Gordon | WR | 5.8 | *** | 78 | 36 | 83 | 62 | |
Anthony LaLota | DE | 5.8 | **** | 80 | 11 | 15 | 13 | |
Taylor Lewan | OL | 5.8 | **** | 80 | 16 | 20 | 12 | |
Denard Robinson | ATH | 5.8 | **** | 81 | 14 | 16 | 7 | |
Michael Schofield | OL | 5.8 | **** | 77 | 18 | 10 | 39 | |
Fitzgerald Toussaint | RB | 5.8 | *** | 79 | 8 | 49 | 28 | |
Quinton Washington | OL | 5.8 | *** | 82 | 8 | 19 | 6 | |
Isaiah Bell | LB | 5.7 | *** | 81 | 26 | 46 | 11 | |
Brandin Hawthorne | LB | 5.7 | *** | 78 | 35 | 33 | 39 | |
Mike Jones | DB | 5.7 | *** | 77 | 25 | 49 | 54 | |
Teric Jones | RB | 5.7 | *** | 78 | 37 | 44 | 48 | |
Vincent Smith | RB | 5.7 | *** | 77 | 36 | 102 | 60 | |
Thomas Gordon | ATH | 5.5 | ** | 77 | X | 115 | 77 | |
Brendan Gibbons | K | 5.4 | *** | 77 | 8 | 11 | 16 |
Second, overall ranking (complication here is Rivals goes to 250, Scout to 300, and ESPN only to 150 -- so a guy that doesn't make ESPN's list could be #151...that is why I included the above data too):
2009 | Rivals 250 | Scout 300 | ESPN 150 | |
William Campbell | DT | 26 | 35 | x |
Justin Turner | DB | 35 | 26 | x |
Tate Forcier | QB | 164 | 137 | 144 |
Jeremy Gallon | ATH | 151 | x | x |
Craig Roh | DE | 156 | 67 | 47 |
Je'Ron Stokes | WR | 104 | 169 | 67 |
Cameron Gordon | WR | 233 | x | x |
Anthony LaLota | DE | 215 | 116 | x |
Taylor Lewan | OL | 194 | 274 | 148 |
Denard Robinson | ATH | 188 | 159 | 101 |
Michael Schofield | OL | 221 | 135 | x |
Fitzgerald Toussaint | RB | 239 | x | x |
Quinton Washington | OL | 213 | x | 81 |
Isaiah Bell | LB | x | x | 94 |
FYI: for that set I only included the guys who made the "top whatever" list for one of the three sites.
Takeaways from 2009
Outliers, Good
- ESPN - Will Campbell (he was a top 40 overall to the others, a good-not-great player to ESPN)
- ESPN - Justin Turner (same deal)
- Scout - Vlad Emilien (Rivals and ESPN thought he was a top 20-ish DB -- Scout was far more bearish)
- Scout - Isaiah Bell (had him a sane 46 at his position, rather than 26 (rivals) or 11 (ESPN))
Could also make an argument for: ESPN - Denard (101 overall vs. 159 and 188); Scout -J. Stokes (had him too high at 169 overall, but much better than Rivals (104) and ESPN (67); ESPN - Lewan (148 overall vs. 194 and 274); Scout - Q. Washington (had him 19 at his position, while the others overrated at 8 and 6).
Outliers, Bad
- ESPN - Q. Washington (had him 81 overall - not a top 100 player)
- ESPN - I. Bell (had him 94 overall - way off)
- Scout - Fitz Toussaint (had him too low at #49 back -- jury is still out on whethe Rivals (#8) or ESPN (#28) had him pegged best, but as an optimist I would say it may be Rivals)
- Rivals - Mike Jones (had him #25 at his position -- other sites much better ranking him 49 and 54)
Could also make an argument for: ESPN - Stokes (had him #67 overall compared to #104 or #169 -- didn't include above only because position rankings are pretty close across the sites (14-17-8); Scout - LaLota (had him #116 overall which was less off-base than Rivals (#215) and ESPN (something above 150), but again positional rankings pretty close); Scout - Lewan (had him #274 when the other sites were much better at 194 (rivals) and 148 (ESPN).
There are many other conclusions you could draw from this data, and those conclusions will depend greatly on your opinion of a particular player. For example, Rivals was much higher on Gallon. But I'm not sure yet who was right or wrong -- depends what you think of Gallon.
But based on my own analysis ESPN and Scout did pretty well this year. Rivals not so much.
On to 2008...
2008 | Rivals | Scout | ESPN | Rivals (pos) | Scout (pos) | ESPN (pos) | ||
Boubacar Cissoko | DB | 6 | ***** | 78 | 4 | 3 | 24 | |
Dann O'Neill | OL | 6 | **** | 82 | 10 | 14 | 4 | |
Darryl Stonum | WR | 6 | **** | 82 | 7 | 12 | 14 | |
J.B. Fitzgerald | LB | 5.9 | **** | 80 | 18 | 10 | 14 | |
Kevin Koger | TE | 5.9 | **** | 73 | 4 | 6 | 113 | |
Michael Shaw | RB | 5.9 | **** | 78 | 7 | 29 | 59 | |
Brandon Smith | DB | 5.9 | **** | 75 | 11 | 4 | 75 | |
Ricky Barnum | OL | 5.8 | *** | 80 | 5 | 17 | 4 | |
Kenny Demens | LB | 5.8 | *** | 78 | 23 | 23 | 35 | |
Taylor Hill | LB | 5.8 | *** | 75 | 21 | 25 | 70 | |
Mike Martin | DT | 5.8 | **** | 80 | 16 | 12 | 8 | |
Sam McGuffie | RB | 5.8 | **** | 79 | 10 | 7 | 30 | |
Elliott Mealer | OL | 5.8 | **** | 77 | 24 | 28 | 42 | |
Brandon Moore | TE | 5.8 | *** | 81 | 8 | 43 | 6 | |
Terrence Robinson | RB | 5.8 | **** | 80 | 9 | 16 | 18 | |
Roy Roundtree | WR | 5.8 | *** | 76 | 44 | 89 | 104 | |
Marcus Witherspoon | LB | 5.8 | **** | 20 | 14 | x | ||
Mike Cox | RB | 5.7 | **** | 77 | x | 35 | 70 | |
Justin Feagin | ATH | 5.7 | *** | 40 | 41 | 93 | x | |
Rocko Khoury | OL | 5.7 | *** | 70 | 41 | 65 | 99 | |
Martavious Odoms | WR | 5.7 | **** | 78 | 71 | 49 | 56 | |
Kurt Wermers | OL | 5.6 | **** | 78 | 37 | 11 | 20 | |
J.T. Floyd | ATH | 5.5 | *** | 75 | x | 75 | 75 | |
Patrick Omameh | DE | 5.1 | *** | 69 | x | 87 | 114 |
I have put emphasis on the obvious outliers above. Sadly, the way a site looked smart this year was to doubt one of our recruits.
Takeaways from 2008
Outliers, Good
- ESPN - Cissoko (others had him a top 5 CB...not so much)
- ESPN - Mike Shaw (hurts to say, but I think they were right)
- ESPN - Brandon Smith (elite to Rivals and Scout, ESPN had it right)
- Scout - Ricky Barnum (I love Barnum but Scout had a more realistic take on him)
- ESPN - Taylor Hill (see Smith, Cissoko)
(I am skipping McGuffie and Mealer because I think both ran into some horrible luck and may have turned out differently if that was not the case -- but based on an objective look at production ESPN had them right too)
- Scout - Brandon Moore (Still hoping Scout is proven wrong, but....looks they were right and Rivals and ESPN were wrong to call him a positional top 10)
- Rivals - Roy Roundtree (Finally Rivals gets one! They had Roundtree much higher than the others (#44 WR vs. 89 or 104)
- Rivals - Kurt Wermers (another case of Rivals getting it right; Scout's #11 positional ranking looks especially bad here)
Outliers, Bad
- ESPN - Dann O'Neill (I am faulting ESPN here for pegging O'Neill as a super-duper star (#4 OT); the others thought he was good, but not that good)
- ESPN - Kevin Koger (he may not have produced like a #4 or #6 TE, but I think Scout and Rivals were much closer to the mark than ESPN who had him as the #113 DE)
- Rivals - Mike Shaw (talented guy, but not a #7 back)
ESPN has the biggest hits and misses here, but I think overall does the best in 2008. Scout comes in second. Rivals last again.
Overall Takeaways
The track record from these two classes does not support the notion that ESPN is out to lunch or does not know what they're talking about. Personally? I think they're wrong about Pipkins. But I can't say that ESPN's track record shows I can discount their view.
By my count, here is the tally on major outlier picks that seem to have a definitive right/wrong result from 2008 and 2009:
ESPN: +6, -4 (net 2)
Scout: +4, -1 (net 3)
Rivals: +2, -2 (net 0)
Obviously my quantitative measures are subjective; I offer this as food for thought. Please discuss and improve on what I did here. But let's not dismiss sites out of hand. As the above shows, there is no basis for that. Certainly not with respect to ESPN.
An Interview With Cameron Dillard
Canton (MI) guard Cameron Dillard is drawing national attention—along with interest from home-state schools Michigan and MSU—and has already garnered offers from Buffalo, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, and Western Michigan. The 6'3", 280-pound junior is a member of the ESPNU 150 and recently showed his skills with the nation's best underclassmen at the Army All-American Combine. I spoke to Cameron yesterday after he worked out with the one and only Mike Barwis, and we discussed his recruitment, his junior year, and working out with a man who owns pet wolves. Here's the full transcript:
ACE: How is your recruitment going, and which schools are going after you the hardest right now?
CAMERON: My recruitment is going real well, everything's turning out to be real optimistic with a bunch of schools. I think I should have a big spring coming up. Some schools that have come on real strong and are very close to offering, I believe, are Michigan State, Michigan, Clemson, and West Virginia, as well as some other schools.
ACE: Out of the schools that have been recruiting you so far, are there any early favorites right now, or is it too soon to make that distinction?
CAMERON: No, not really. I'm kinda keeping everything level. No favorites right now, at this point.
ACE: Looking back at your junior year, how did that go for you, and how do you think you performed and improved throughout the season?
CAMERON: I thought I did real well. Considering that I worked with Mike [Barwis], I thought he made me more athletic, more explosive, able to move better on the field, and get up the field better. I also worked with Lomas Brown on pass protections, which was a blessing. I've come a long way, I believe, from last year to this year in my pass blocking. I just continue to improve on that. Actually a couple coaches asked me how many IHOPs I'd opened in Canton this season, a little joke. But yeah, I think I had a real good season. I've got to continue to work with Mike and his staff and continue to get better.
ACE: In working with Mike Barwis, how long have you been doing that, and how does it help you in terms of—I don't know how many other athletes have that kind of resource, so how does it help you to work out with a guy who was the Michigan strength coach just a couple years ago?
CAMERON: You know, it's great. I definitely can't thank my parents enough for giving me the support to let me go there and train. I think it's continued to help me—I'm becoming faster, quicker, stronger. I just think it's improved my strength and my conditioning as well. Actually, a bunch of Michigan guys are there now: Molk, Van Bergen, Watson, Koger, Mike Martin, a bunch of those guys are training with him now, getting themselves prepared for the NFL Combine. It's definitely helped me push myself and take my training to another level.
ACE: I know you're working hard over there, but do you interact at all with the Michigan guys? Do they talk to you at all, or is it mostly business?
CAMERON: I talk to them a lot, actually. I talk to Molk and Watson the most. I haven't really got to meet Koger and Mike Martin that much, but Watson and Molk are always giving me a hard time.
ACE: You also mentioned working with Lomas Brown. He's obviously a pretty legendary NFL offensive lineman. How has he helped your game?
CAMERON: He's helped me improve my pass blocking and becoming that all-around player that schools are looking for, because I'm in a run-dominant offense [at Canton].
ACE: If you had to scout yourself, what would you say are your biggest strengths as a player, and what are you continuing to work on for your senior year and the next level?
CAMERON: I'd say that my aggression on the field, my physicality, you just can't teach toughness. Also, run blocking is a big thing of mine that I believe I'm doing real well at. I'd say my weakness—which isn't really a weakness, it's becoming more my strength now—is my pass protection. I've got to keep working on that and getting better at it.
ACE: You went to the Army Combine recently. How did that go for you?
CAMERON: Good. I performed pretty well. I had a 28.5-inch vertical and a 5.25 40-yard dash. They didn't tell us our shuttle so I'll have to check online for that, and then the pass protection, like I said, working with Lomas helped me improve, so I definitely improved while I was down there. I've taken big strides from last year to this year on my pass protection.
ACE: Do you have any plans in terms of any more camps, junior days, or summer visits, do you know what schools you'd like to see before next year?
CAMERON: Not really. I'm going to junior days right now, I'll actually be at Indiana this weekend, and then I was already at Michigan State in December. Michigan hopefully I'll be able to get up there in the spring for spring ball.
ACE: You visited Michigan for the Notre Dame game. What was your impression of Michigan from your visit?
CAMERON: I thought it was great, the atmosphere there—you know, that's part of my 'three A's' for a school, the athletics, atmosphere, and academics. I think Coach Hoke and the rest of the staff have done a fantastic job this season. I've got to talk to Coach Hoke a few times while I was in San Antonio and when I was at the All-State Dream Team banquet, and he's a real down-to-earth, humble guy. I like him, and I love being able to talk to Coach Jackson, Coach Mattison, and they've been real positive to me.
ACE: You mentioned those three A's. Specifically, what are you looking for in a school, what are the factors that are going to make you commit to a school?
CAMERON: Fan base, I would say, is one. Having the support of my family. Distance isn't a big factor for me. Academics, because I'd like to study criminal justice or sports management or history, something like that, so if they're real strong in that. Then athletics, if I have a real chance at playing early, if I feel like I'm at home, and if I can see myself best in that offense.
ACE: Do you have any idea in terms of a timeline, when you'd like to wrap up your recruitment?
CAMERON: Not at this moment, not right now. I guess whenever I get that gut feeling and I know whatever school is for me, I'll know.
Video: Michigan - MSU
Torrent: Michigan - MSU 720p MP4 (2.90 GB)
Full game:
Last 30 seconds:
BTN highlights:
Locker room:


text:
All the Achievements/Trophies in Project CARS were inspired by you - the community who helped dream them up and name them! Categorized by our four pillars of Career, Solo, Online, and Community in order to ensure an even spread across the game, they were then sub-divided into a range of difficulties from easy ones you may get simply by trying something out to fiendish ones that may take particular skill or time. We've also included some secret ones to so you'll have to do some exploring to find out how to unlock these ;-) So take a look below and start planning how you're going to get them all and guessing what the secret ones may be! Who's going to be the first to unlock One More For The Road!! |
Get ready for launch by checking out the Xbox One Achievements, PlayStation Trophies, and Steam Achievements for Project CARS! When you pre-order Project CARS from selected retailers you get your hands on a one-of-a-kind vehicle - the Ruf CTR3 SMS-R. Up until now this unique car has been under wraps in testing but now we're ready to unveil it and tell you a bit more about the collaboration between Slightly Mad Studios and Ruf... Further blurring the lines between reality and gaming, the Ruf CTR3 SMS-R is a fictional race spec version created by the talented engineers at veteran developers Slightly Mad Studios of the already-impressive Ruf CTR3 super sports car. With a stripped interior, bespoke bodywork and highly-tuned engine, the Ruf CTR3 SMS-R produces over 750 horsepower and a staggering 330 km/h top speed making it a truly unique combination of technical excellence and aesthetic passion. As we head towards launch, we've got a series of new videos taking you in-depth with the various features and game modes in Project CARS. In this first episode, we take a look at how your career is structured... Stay tuned for the next episode where we take a look at Qualifying, the Pit Box, pit strategies, and some gameplay from your first career race.
This weekend Bandai Namco Games UK will be supporting Special Effect's 24-hour GameBlast LIVE event, with brand new gameplay footage of Project CARS streamed live via Twitch.
GameBlast LIVE is challenging gamers to hold their own sponsored gaming marathons over the weekend of February 20-22, with all money raised going towards levelling the playing field for gamers with disabilities. 2014's GameBlast event raised more than £70,000 for the charity. As part of Bandai Namco Games' contribution, from 10:30 to 11:30am and 13:00 to 14:00 on Saturday, February 21 creative director Andy Tudor and Bandai Namco Games UK's Lee Kirton will showcase the very latest PS4 build of Project CARS. The public can watch live at twitch.tv/gameblastlive. Between 15:00 and 16:00 on the same day a third session will be streamed live from Ginx tv and in association with @gamedigital at twitch.tv/ginxtv. For more information on GameBlast LIVE visit Special Effect's website and to donate please visit the GameBlast JustGiving page. A part of Project CARS' ongoing dedication to blurring the lines between gaming and real-life is its Young Driver Initiative whereby up & coming race drivers can use the game as a learning tool to help with their career; whether that's practicing on a track they don't have physical access to, experimenting with tuning setups on their car, or laying down competitive times on the Driver Network Leaderboard.
Check out our latest short feature explaining the meaning behind the stripes in our logo, why community means so much to us, and how developing the game has come full circle with professional racing drivers now using it as practice for the real thing! In case you missed it, the previews for Project CARS started coming out this week. Here's a brief roundup of what people are saying!
Whether it's the heart-pounding beat of a heavy drum & bass drop to inspire you to nail that next corner, the uplifting melody of an EDM anthem, or classic strings to accompany your open-top drive along the coast, Project CARS players can listen to a variety of curated playlists using Spotify. Available on PC, and coming soon to PlayStation 4, you're sure to find something to your taste from the following music genres...
The Project CARS YouTube channel is your final destination for a ton of great content both ourselves and YOU - the community - are creating for Project CARS... FEATURESStarting today, we're launching a series of short films taking you deeper into Project CARS' showing at PlayStation Experience in Las Vegas. Check out the first of these right here explaining how Project CARS got its name! With the New Year well and truly underway, 2015 is the year that Project CARS delivers the next-gen racing experience that gamers have been desperate for. With over 80,000 players being involved since October 2011, in March racing fans will finally get their hands on the most technically-advanced, beautiful, intense and authentic racing game on the planet that's been tested, guided, and approved every step of the way by both gamers and real-life pro drivers alike. FEATURES
But enough talk, see for yourself why both critics and gamers alike are excited for Project CARS with our new trailer! Community Apps are another great example of our focus on innovation, our determination to break from tradition, and our continuing dedication to the Project CARS community.
Over a year ago, Slightly Mad Studios released an API giving the community the ability to plug directly in to Project CARS and pull out a variety of information. The intent here was to allow you the players the ability to create your own supporting apps for all the weird and wonderful devices and hardware you own. Now, as Project CARS nears release, here are just a few of the fantastic creations you've made that further blur the lines between game and real-life, and prove once more that Project CARS is the most technically-advanced racing game on the planet… Already featuring scenic drives along the French riviera, epic mountain passes down the US west coast, exotic vistas from Australia and Dubai, and iconic motorsports tracks from across the UK, US, and Europe, Project CARS continues to build upon the largest location roster of any recent racing game with yet set of freshly-announced destinations…
Pre-purchase the Project CARS Digital Edition on Steam today to secure both incredible sets of cars and move your ultimate driver journey into the fast lane!
You've played it in Dubai, London, Madrid, and Paris but for those that couldn't jet-set around the world, sit back and take a more leisurely look at Project CARS on Xbox One, running at 60 frames per second! As players and racing fans we have a passion for the games we play and the races we watch. And as game developers, we have a heritage and pedigree in making racing games for over 10 years now. Together we've been making Project CARS as a team - our own expertise combined with the wishes and direction of the community. Wherever possible we get out on the track ourselves too as we believe you cannot replicate something truly until you've experienced it yourself. When you watch an open wheel race on television for example the car comes screaming down the finish straight looking like a smooth and fast arrow cutting through the air - but sitting in it yourself with the engine inches away from the back of your head you appreciate how lightweight the car is as it vibrates over every track bump and instantly responds to each micro-movement you make with the steering wheel. To celebrate the Halloween season, enjoy a thrilling ride in the dark and scary atmosphere of racing at night through a thunderstorm! This particular Halloween trailer exemplifies our ethos that everything we put into Project CARS not only has to look absolutely stunning but must add additional gameplay.
Showcasing incredible visual fidelity that allows this iconic track to be recreated with absolute perfection, it also highlights the added challenge that racing at night in severe weather conditions brings - especially in a tight pack of extremely fast GT spec cars. So sit back and enjoy the thrill and drama of this descent into the intimidating German forest and Happy Halloween! Project CARS has the largest roster of race locations of any recent racing game. Last time we revealed some iconic European enclosed circuits. This time around we're expanding both the type of locations you'll be encountering in Project CARS and also reaching far around the world to truly deliver a global motorsports experience. Check out the Cars page for info on the next form of car culture represented in Project CARS - Track Day Cars!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Here is Amazon's audacious plan to go way beyond drones by Benjamin Snyder @FortuneMagazine February 27, 2015, 2:34 PM EST E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons Amazon has filed for patents on a system that would use truck-based 3D printers to quickly deliver customers' bespoke orders, the Wall Street Journal reports. Such an idea could help the company more quickly deliver customers' orders, assuming they're able to be 3D-printed. "Time delays between receiving an order and shipping the item to the customer may reduce customer satisfaction and affect revenues generated," wrote Amazon in the patent applications. A move to these tech-filled vehicles, in turn, would also decrease warehouse and inventory storage space needed, the application continued. Of course, just because the e-commerce giant submitted the application doesn't mean the idea will ever come to fruition. The patent may not even be accepted, writes the Journal. In the past, Amazon filed for a patent on "anticipatory delivery" in which merchandise would start being delivered to customers ahead of purchase. But that idea hasn't been put to use, the newspaper notes. The news comes after Amazon was named the best retailer for shoppers, according to a survey released last month by consulting firm PwC. The company has also said it is interested in possibly delivering merchandise via drone.
J.C. Penney still blaming Ron Johnson-era for slow profit growth by Benjamin Snyder @FortuneMagazine February 26, 2015, 6:07 PM EST E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons J.C. Penney just can't get its customers to pay full price. And it's still trying to blame its ex-CEO for it. The department store chain reported that comparable sales, which includes online and sales at stores open for at least a year, rose 4.4% during the key holiday season quarter, above Wall Street expectations and at the high-end of its forecast range. Yet that was not enough to report an adjusted profit, which excludes certain expenses. By that measure, J.C. Penny merely broke even, while Wall Street was expecting a profit of 11 cents per share. The shortfall sent the company's shares JCP down more than 10% in after-hours trading. The culprit? Its gross profit margin – a measure of the profitability of what it actually sold — rose 5.4 percentage points to 33.8% of sales, but that was still below analyst forecasts. What's more, Penney doesn't seem to think its gross margin will improve all that much despite an expected 3% to 5% lift in comparable store sales this year. At most, it said its gross margin would rise 1 percentage point to 35.8% of sales, still well below from the 39% rate it achieved before the recent recession. All this shows is that despite an improvement in its business, Penney is still contending with a business that is highly dependent on discounts and that its offerings aren't special enough to command more in a still tough retail environment. The company laid some of the blame for that at the feet of former CEO Ron Johnson, a veteran of tech giant Apple whose attempt in 2012 and 2013 to re-invent the 113-year-old retailer into a trendier store with name-brands bombed. It's true that Penney is still feeling the effects of the mass exodus of shoppers caused by Johnson's distaste for coupons and focus on in-house brands like St. John's Bay. Sales for 2014 rose to $12.3 billion, still a far cry from the $17 billion mark it hit right before Johnson became CEO. Online revenue, which Johnson decimated when he separated the online and bricks and mortar-buying and planning teams, continued to recover in 2014, reaching $1.22 billion. But it is still far from their $1.6 billion apex 4 years ago. "We're still trying to recover from the self-inflicted wounds from the previous strategy," CEO Mike Ullman told analysts on a call Thursday, referring to Johnson. But that's a bit of a cop-out. Since Ullman, who first was CEO from 2004 to 2011, returned in April 2013 to prevent the company from going under, he has largely returned to a promotion-heavy strategy and brought back the Penney brands Johnson dumped. All told, Penney's in-house brands generate half of its sales, attracting loyal customers but failing to bring in new ones. That very strategy is that one that led Penney to underperform for years during the last decade, recover more slowly from the recession than Macy's M or Kohl's KSS and ultimately prompted activist investor Bill Ackman to push for Johnson's installation in late 2011. This past holiday season, Penney had a much wider assortment of merchandise from its own brands. It also sold most of the backlog that Johnson had brought in that flopped with customers. As result, gross margin should have improved more. In the previous year, margins had been depressed by managers slashing prices to get ride of the overflow in Johnson-era merchandise. What's more, some of the problems haunting Penney predate Johnson, who was CEO for 20 months. Ullman was the boss when Penney decided in 2010 to discontinue sending out catalogues in the belief e-commerce made them irrelevant. That move, Ullman conceded on the call on Thursday, cost Penney "about 10 million customers to our home business." Home goods, which help to get shoppers into stores, used to be 20% of Penney's sales. But now that category only accounts for about 12% of revenue. Ullman is stepping down in August and will be replaced by president Marvin Ellison, a former Home Depot executive. In October, Penney projected that its sales would reach $14.5 billion in 2017, raising investor alarm about whether it could ever get back to where it was. Thursday's results only reinforced that nagging suspicion that Penney's eventual recovery may be limited. Watch more business news from Fortune:
Target raises ante in e-commerce fight with Amazon, Walmart by Benjamin Snyder @FortuneMagazine February 23, 2015, 3:37 PM EST E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons The e-commerce wars continue to intensify in 2015. Target TGT is lowering the minimum online order size needed to get free shipping by half in a bid to squeeze archrivals Wal-Mart Stores WMT , Amazon.com AMZN and Best Buy BBY . The discount retailer will now require a minimum order of $25 for free shipping, down from $50, and below the $35 thresholds at Best Buy and Amazon (excluding Prime), and half of what Walmart requires. (It also gets even cheaper compared to the $99 minimum at J.C. Penney JCP and Macy's M , which are more indirect rivals.) The move is the latest by Target to stop being what its executives call a "fast follower" in e-commerce—a company that lets others set the agenda and quickly mimics their pricing—and take the lead. As detailed in the cover story of this month's issue of Fortune, Target was similarly aggressive this past holiday season by being the first in its peer group to offer free shipping on all orders regardless of size, a sharp contrast with earlier holiday seasons when the retailer took its cues from the competition and was a laggard in e-commerce. In 2014, Target rewrote 75% of the code in its e-commerce platform, and now its website is considered by e-commerce experts to be up to par with its rivals and in some areas, namely mobile shopping, leading. The company's e-commerce had been handled by Amazon until 2011, and target.com's limitations became crystal clear soon after when the site crashed from high demand for products in the Missoni collection that autumn. Target's bureaucracy and insularity prevented it from keep up on the e-commerce front in the two years that followed, and its integration with the stores was slow, putting it behind Walmart and others for some time. For example, Walmart customers were able to pick up online orders in store a year before their Target counterparts were. "Playing catch up is never fun," Target Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer Casey Carl told Fortune in a recent interview in Minneapolis. "I've lived that for the last five years, and we'll not let that happen. We'll be seeing around corners far more effectively." Target has been reaping the rewards of its new assertiveness: digital sales on Thanksgiving/Black Friday and Cyber Monday rose 40% in 2014. Overall e-commerce sales are now about 3% of total revenue, and higher in categories like apparel which lend themselves better to e-commerce than grocery. Cognizant of how quickly a lead can evaporate in e-commerce, Target is getting ready for its next test: this spring, it will pilot an online reservation system that lets a customer select items at a store for later pick up. And the company is looking into ways to become a premier retailer for connected home technology such as Nest, including being the exclusive retailer for some products in a growing, and increasingly busy area of retail. (Best Buy is also getting aggressive on the connected home front.) What's more, the retailer is testing same-day delivery in a few markets, including its hometown of Minneapolis and in Boston. While such a low online minimum threshold might appear to threaten profit margins, the fact is that consumers generally don't bother with e-commerce orders that small anyway: some two-thirds of orders placed on target.com already qualify for free shipping. And in any case, that's what shoppers now expect.
Alibaba says received U.S. SEC request for information by Benjamin Snyder @FortuneMagazine February 13, 2015, 5:42 PM EST E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons (Reuters) – Alibaba Group Holding said on Friday it has been asked by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to provide information concerning its interaction with a Chinese regulator. Alibaba said in a statement it was cooperating with the SEC's request, but gave no details on what the regulator specifically wanted. The SEC's request follows an unusually public fracas between Alibaba and China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce over the issue of fake products being sold on the company's websites. Last month, SAIC said in a now-retracted "white paper" that it had met with Alibaba before the company's blockbuster New York stock market listing to discuss the issue of fakes sold on its platform, but had withheld publishing any report so as not to affect the initial public offering in September. Shares of Alibaba BABA were down 0.62 percent in extended trade, after closing up 2.24 percent at $89.05 on the New York Stock Exchange.
Alibaba selects LendingClub to lend to U.S. buyers of Chinese goods by Benjamin Snyder @FortuneMagazine February 3, 2015, 11:15 AM EST E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons (REUTERS) — Alibaba Group Holding Ltd is teaming with LendingClub Corp. to offer financing to U.S. businesses to buy from Chinese suppliers, hoping to make it easier for American firms to tap the world's largest economy. LendingClub, an eight-year-old San Francisco startup, said it will provide its core service of matching small business borrowers with lenders on Alibaba.com, the Chinese company's global wholesale platform. In the exclusive arrangement, LendingClub becomes the main source of U.S. buyer financing on Alibaba.com. It will offer loans of up to $300,000, typically for a few months, at rates of 0.5 percent to 2.4 percent – a fraction of the double-digits that credit cards incur. "They were looking for a technology-aware platform and also a partner that can operate at a low cost, so that the cost of credit for U.S. buyers would be lower," LendingClub founder and CEO Renaud Laplanche told Reuters. Alibaba BABA derives the lion's share of its revenue from retail platforms Taobao and Tmall. But it got its start supporting small businesses with Alibaba.com, which Jack Ma co-founded out of his Hangzhou apartment in 1999. The service is used by businesses on the lookout for cheap products. Alibaba posted revenue of $631 million in international wholesale commerce in the year to March 2014, a sliver of the $8.5 billion in revenue over the same period. Alibaba intends to grow its U.S. footprint by connecting American sellers with increasingly affluent Chinese buyers. It is also trying to aid smaller businesses and merchants, an effort analysts say earns it goodwill while laying the foundation for a longer-term expansion. The Chinese company settled on LendingClub because it found its platform faster and easier to use than a traditional bank. The startup, which has provided some $6 billion in loans since its 2007 inception, is capable of keeping up with demand, said Michael Lee, Alibaba.com's global marketing director. "They're capable of providing an instant approval decision…, that a traditional bank may not be able to. This is really critical to the borrowers," Lee said. The lending risk will be borne by its pool of institutional investors including foundations, endowments and pension funds. Laplanche said the short-term nature of the envisioned loans, typically six months, tended to reduce overall risk. Alibaba will now look for similar providers to extend financing beyond the United States, to major markets such as Britain, Australia, Germany and Canada, Lee said.
Alibaba's Jack Ma dethroned as China's richest person by solar magnate by Benjamin Snyder @FortuneMagazine February 3, 2015, 10:52 AM EST E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons (REUTERS) — Alibaba Group Holding Ltd's Jack Ma is no longer China's richest man, according to a report on Tuesday, with the top spot snatched by Li Hejun, a solar energy entrepreneur whose Hanergy Holding Group Ltd has come under fire for its intragroup dealings. E-commerce tycoon Ma and his family slipped to No. 3 in China, and No. 34 globally, on the HurunGlobal Rich List, with a personal wealth of $24.5 billion. He was pipped by Li with a net worth of $26 billion. The No. 2 spot was held by Dalian Wanda Commercial Properties Co Ltd's Wang Jianlin and his family. Li's Hanergy Group has been the subject of analyst concern over what the Financial Times last week called "unconventional practices" between the firm and its $19.7 billion Hong Kong-listed subsidiary Hanergy Thin Film Power Group Ltd . Most of the subsidiary's reported revenue since 2010 came from equipment sales to its parent and a large chunk of contracts were unpaid as of 2013, the FT reported. Hanergy Thin Film Power Group will "expand our customer base and diversify our source of revenue" and the majority of contracts owed had been repaid, the company said in a filing to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange last week addressing the FT report. Just one of the world's top 20 wealthiest people came from Greater China though it minted more billionaires than anywhere else in the past year. Hong Kong magnate Li Ka-shing was at No. 16 with a net worth of $32 billion, while the rest were mainly from the United States. Microsoft Corp founder Bill Gates topped the list with $85 billion, beating Mexico telecoms tycoon Carlos Slim. Still, Greater China, with 430 billionaires, accounted for more than anywhere except the U.S., which had 537. The next closest was India with a distant 97. Watch more about Alibaba's stock prices from Fortune's video team: Alibaba's BABA Ma partly dropped on the list after his company's stock price fell more than 13 percent in the past week, sending shares to a three-month low, in the wake of disappointing quarterly results on Thursday and an unusually public spat with a Chinese regulator. Ma was China's richest person as recently as September when Alibaba's massive IPO valued the e-commerce giant at well over $200 billion, or more than many of the largest technology companies in the U.S. China's real estate, manufacturing and technology industries were the chief creators of wealth, the Hurun report showed. Richard Liu, chief executive of JD.com Inc, Alibaba's biggest rival in e-commerce, saw his wealth quadrupled to $6.7 billion after leading his firm to a New York listing in 2014, becoming the biggest gainer of the year. China's domestic stock market rally also accounted for some of the new billionaires in China, Hurunsaid.
Did sellers bribe Alibaba employees to improve their search results? by Benjamin Snyder @FortuneMagazine January 29, 2015, 9:33 AM EST E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons During Alibaba's earnings call this morning, when it reported revenues that missed expectations, only one question came up about the report released yesterday by a Chinese regulator criticizing the e-commerce giant. But that might understate how likely the report is to influence talk about Alibaba for some time. The regulator, the State Administration For Industry And Commerce (SAIC) accused Alibaba of selling fake goods and misleading customers on its biggest shopping platform Taobao.com. SAIC has already taken down the report, but in it Alibaba's consumer-to-consumer platform Taobao ranked worse for fakes and reliability than other Chinese sites like JD.com and Yihaodian.com. One fair reason for that, from Alibaba's perspective, is that Taobao is much bigger than its rivals, with 500 million consumer accounts. But the report also includes allegations that Alibaba employees accepted bribes from merchants who wanted to improve their search rankings. Those allegations are going to be riling Wall Street for a while. Taobao's history of fakes and ripoffs is well known in China. But that hasn't hurt Alibaba because increasingly, shoppers look to comments sections first while scanning similar products. If the seller isn't well reviewed, they simply move on, similar to the way a low feedback score on eBay.com can doom a seller. In that way, it's tough to understand the timing of SAIC's report, which was held until after the firm's September IPO, the government said. Even if Alibaba isn't pushing forward with solutions fast enough for regulators' liking, CEO Jack Ma and Co. would certainly move fast if customers were turned off. But that's the thing: customers are only growing. In today's earnings report, Alibaba said revenues in the quarter grew by 40%, even if they slightly missed estimates. As Paul Mozur of The New York Times notes, Alibaba's success has brought it greater scrutiny "with China's opaque and at-times arbitrary government regulators, a reminder that an investment in Alibaba brings inevitable political risk." Fortune highlighted those regulators in a piece last year about the scrutiny Western companies have come under. In it, foreign business groups accused China's regulators of having a spotty record of openness and fairness. Now Alibaba has joined the criticism. On Taobao.com, it said the SAIC's main investigator, Director Liu Hongliang, had unfairly formed the report, including the tiny sample size used (92 batches of products). "We felt we were unfairly attacked by a report that was a sample check of some of the items," Alibaba vice chairman Joe Tsai said in an interview this morning on CBNC. "We thought the methodology was flawed, we felt the attack was targeted at us specifically, and it was unfair. Over time we hope to work with regulators to address the issues of their concern." One response to the SAIC on Taobao, by an unsigned employee, included a fair point. As translated by the WSJ: SAIC has "succeeded in proving just how unsafe and unreliable online shopping in China is, just how crafty the several millions of online retailers are, just how blind and stupid its 500 million consumers are…."
Gap drops Piperlime to focus on fixing its major brands by Benjamin Snyder @FortuneMagazine January 23, 2015, 5:59 PM EST E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons Gap Inc GPS is dropping its small Piperlime online brand so the apparel maker and retailer can focus on fixing the problems bedeviling its much bigger namesake and Banana Republic brands. Piperlime, which Gap founded in 2006 as a rival to Amazon.com's AMZN Zappos.com, sold shoes, clothing and accessories via e-commerce and through a store in New York's SoHo district. But it never caught on with a wide audience beyond its core, dedicated customers, and its revenues never topped $100 million, a drop in the bucket for a company with annual sales exceeding $16 billion. Gap said it would "focus on its portfolio of five brands – Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic, Athleta and Intermix, as well as digital and global growth." Gap has said that it thinks Athleta can emerge as a fourth major brand. Incoming CEO Art Peck, who has overseen its digital efforts and takes the reins next month, is looking to improve business at Gap, where comparable sales fell 5% in December and at Banana Republic, where they were flat. The company's Old Navy brand, and its up-and-coming Athleta, which competes with Lululemon Athleta LULU , have been its prime source of growth.
UPS slammed by a different holiday season mess-up by Benjamin Snyder @FortuneMagazine January 23, 2015, 2:06 PM EST E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons United Parcel Service UPS just can't seem to get it right when it comes to planning for the holidays. The world's largest delivery company reported on Friday what it called "disappointing" preliminary quarterly financial results, the effect of adding too much extra firepower for the 2014 holiday season to avoid a repeat of the 2013 debacle. That year, UPS failed to deliver countless packages in time for Christmas as it grappled with snowstorms and last-minute surges in online orders. Taking no risks, UPS said in September it would nearly double seasonal hiring. It also spent about $500 million on measures such as automated sorting systems to quickly identify ZIP Codes and have the ability to re-route packages in the event of the kind of bad weather that in 2013 created all sorts of chaos. It worked, with an assist from Mother Nature. (There were no major snowstorms anywhere in the country to snarl UPS and its competition.) According to tracking-software developer Shipmatrix Inc., some 98% of UPS and FedEx FDX express packages were delivered on time on Dec. 24, up from about 90% for FedEx and 83% for UPS a year earlier. UPS had previously forecast it would ship about 585 million packages in December, up 11%. But that highly improved customer service came at a big cost to UPS' bottom line: the company lowered its profit forecast for fiscal 2014 and said fiscal 2015's profit growth would be a bit below its longer term forecast. In contrast, as if to mock UPS, and prevent its shares from taking a double-digit dive, FedEx soon after said it was sticking to its profit forecast. While total package volume for the holiday season came in as expected for UPS, that was largely because of the surges on Cyber Monday, the biggest e-commerce day of the year, and Dec. 22, typically the peak day for UPS because of retailers' cutoffs for guaranteed delivery by Christmas Eve. Demand for the other 59 days of the holiday season came in below UPS expectations, meaning a lot of that extra holiday muscle went unused. "UPS invested heavily to ensure we would provide excellent service during peak (season) when deliveries more than double. Though customers enjoyed high quality service, it came at a cost to UPS," said CEO David Abney. He also hinted that retailers would stop getting a (relatively) free ride and bear more of that cost next Christmas period. "Going forward, we will reduce operating costs and implement new pricing strategies during peak season." That should add to the growing tension between retailers and the delivery companies: in October, the Wall Street Journal reported that UPS was trying to convince e-commerce companies to hold their big sales in mid-December instead of so close to Christmas itself and to eschew free overnight-shipping offers on Dec. 23, lest it find itself unable to handle the surge again. And Reuters reported a month later that UPS said it would charge customers more, and maybe refuse packages if last-minute sales by a major customer threatened the company's system.
Boxed, a bulk shopping app, raises $25 million by Benjamin Snyder @FortuneMagazine January 14, 2015, 10:11 AM EST E-mail Tweet Facebook Google Plus Linkedin Share icons Boxed, a mobile application for wholesale shopping, has raised $25 million in a Series B round of funding. GGV Capital and Digital Sky Technologies led the round with participation from Founders Fund, AME Cloud Ventures, Vaizra Investments, and all prior investors, the company told Fortune. The New York startup has now raised a total of $33 million in venture funding; it will use the new capital to build out its fulfillment capacity and increase its assortment of goods offered. With a team of just under 30 employees and three warehouses, Boxed has been operating since 2013, when it launched in the Northeast. Now the company delivers bulk goods, ordered with a swipe of the smartphone, to the continental United States. The company wouldn't release customer numbers, but CEO Chieh Huang said millions of people have tried the app. A similar company, Jet.com, was featured on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek last week. That company, which hasn't yet launched, is headed by Marc Lore, who founded Quidsi, better known as Diapers.com. Quidsi sold to Amazon AMZN in 2010, and Lore has raised $80 million to take on Amazon again with Jet. The new company plans to launch in the coming month. Both Boxed and Jet aim to mimic the big box club retailers like Sam's Club and Costco COST online. The opportunity is a big one. While Sam's Club and Costco have their own mobile apps, they haven't made much of a splash in mobile. Sam's Club, for example, does around $50 billion in annual sales, but only 1% of that is online. Learn more about other mobile shopping options from Fortune's video team: The startups taking slightly different approaches. Jet acts as a platform for third party sellers, similar to Amazon. The site will carry millions of items from a variety of retailers. Meanwhile Boxed acts as a retailer itself, owning its inventory and selling a limited number of items, all sold in bulk. "We are only first party so we can control speed of delivery and whole experience," Huang says. "Jet is more of the Walmart going after Amazon and we're a wholesale kind of experience. We go after discounts because you can only buy the massive pack. You can't buy a box of 10 granola bars, but you can only buy the 96-pack." That style of shopping saves money but he acknowledged it is "not for everyone." Where Jet was founded by an e-commerce veteran, Boxed's founding team is made up of ex-gaming industry vets. Huang sold his gaming startup, Astro Ape, to Zynga ZNGA in 2011. With Boxed, he's taking what he learned about making addictive mobile games and applying it to mobile shopping, which is an area he believes lags on optimization. (The company has also applied a number of techie upgrades on the traditional warehouse including Google Glass, iPads and customer service robots.) Lastly, Boxed differentiates itself by not charging an annual membership fee. (Sams' Club and Costco charge a respective $45 or $55 per year; Jet will also charge a fee.) Boxed also stocks more green and organic items not sold at the big club retailers. Where 60% of the customers at wholesale club retailers are baby boomer or senior citizens, Boxed's customers are millennials and late Gen-Xers, Huang says. "Our customers don't have the time, means or patience to go into a brick and mortar warehouse—if there's one in their area," he says. For the last year Boxed has largely remained in the top 100 apps in the lifestyle category, according to App Annie, an app analytics service. To help it fend off competition, Boxed has a long list of e-commerce experts in its stable. In addition to its new investors (which have backed Airbnb, Flipkart, and Groupon) prior investors include Greycroft Partners, which invested in Trunk Club and The RealReal; Signia Venture Partners; and First Round Capital, where partner Josh Kopelman founded Half.com. ENIAC Ventures, Social Starts, BoxGroup, former Facebook COO Owen Van Natta, and former Zynga executive David Ko were also early investors in the company.