Punt/Counterpunt: Rutgers 2015

[Adam Glanzman]

PUNT

By Heiko Yang

Sometimes you get burned.

In medicine, everyone has stories about “that time I missed diagnosis X because I was so sure it was diagnosis Y.” Earlier this year I missed a retroperitoneal bleed because I was utterly convinced that my patient’s back pain was a routine case of muscle spasms from straining to get out of bed (he was not in the best physical shape). I coolly presented my findings as “benign” and “unremarkable” only to watch in horror as the senior resident ran her hand over the subtle but sinister-looking bruise tracking along the patient’s flank.

It was one of the few moments in medical school where quitting seemed like a good idea.

The reaction is pretty natural, I think. Misdiagnosis happens, but at a tertiary center like Michigan, a lot of times Y is some weird life-threatening thing while X is garden variety, so you just feel a little silly and move on. But when it’s the other way around, especially if you don’t catch your mistake and something horrible happens to your patient*, you feel like you no longer deserve to be a doctor. The negative reinforcement is so powerful that there’s even an acronym for it – IGBO, or “I Got Burned Once” – because it’s actually kind of a healthcare problem. Costs increase and routine problems become more complicated by doctors who recommend unnecessary tests and interventions because they have PTSD from the last time they missed the rare but scary diagnosis. You better believe I’m going to think “retroperitoneal bleed” every time a patient on a blood thinner complains of back pain, and it’ll be a conscious effort to resist the urge to scan every one of them.

Last week Michigan’s defense got burned. Minnesota got lucky and hit a few big plays in the first half, which put the Wolverines on their heels for the rest of the game and gave the Gophers the opportunity to hit even more big plays. The way everything played out made it a little easier to appreciate the overused adage about the secondary having a “short memory.” They have the unenviable position of being almost always culpable for the big 20+ yard gainers, and letting those mistakes influence how they play the next down usually just leads to more mistakes. The signs and symptoms of IGBO were rampant throughout the secondary. It felt like they were still reliving the last big play on every snap.

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that Michigan’s secondary is relatively inexperienced. Half of the major contributors – Hill, Thomas, and Clark – are new. I’m optimistic about this. With more and more experience, they’ll learn to spend less time dwelling on their mistakes as they eventually adopt the cool poise of seasoned veterans. In the short term, however, the fact that Michigan won should help eliminate the hangover from last week’s poor performance and hasten the return to form this week. Instead of the 3rd-and-17 conversion or Channing Stribling’s bust on the double move, the last big plays they remember from this game should be the goal-line stand and then racing to the opposite sideline to reclaim the jug.

Oh, and they’re playing Rutgers. That should help, too.

Rutgers 3, Michigan 31

*Don’t worry, that patient ended up doing okay. It’s a good thing they don’t let medical students make any real decisions.

COUNTERPUNT

By Nick RoUMel

IGBO. Just “once,” Heiko?

I’m not sure how I feel about a profession whose practitioners will admit to only one mistake. We lawyers screw up all the time, whether it’s missing a shortened statute of limitations buried deep in the fine print of an employment application from 20 years ago, or bungling strategy on the verge of victory that’s the legal equivalent of Minnesota’s final 19 seconds last Saturday.

On the other hand, we lawyers wrote the U.S. Constitution while doctors were still curing people with leeches. (But when you look at how people still argue about what the Constitution means over 220 years later, maybe we screwed that up too.)

One mistake we can all agree on: Rutgers does not belong in the Big Ten. It still baffles me why the conference honchos thought it was a good idea to expand the conference in this fashion. Rutgers? Nebraska? Maryland? I’m sure the addition of these three red-clad teams also relates to one of our founding fathers - or in the vernacular, “It’s all about the Benjamins.”

Today one of those outliers engages in noble battle with a team from Michigan, the heartland of the conference. On paper this is a mismatch. The favorites, despite some heart stopping moments, have are a strong team that has exceeded a lot of expectations. The underdog is already on the verge of a losing season and is playing today with an air of desperation.

However, we do know they can move the ball and score points; it’s their defense that’s a question mark. One advantage they have is that the favorite may be overlooking them. It’s the worst kind of trap game.

I feel pretty strongly about the upset. And frankly, nothing will make me happier:

BIG RED 33, MICHIGAN …. STATE 28

Whoops, did I make a mistake? Well at least no one got hurt!

Let’s try again. The good guys win, but not so convincingly:

MICHIGAN 28, SCARLET KNIGHTS 20