Games 1 & 2 of 2009
I have been reading all the fluff pieces, all the media day stuff, all the preseason stuff and a thought came upon me.
What will it take for us to get onto the national scene(the opposite of #38 in the country), and quickly?
My answer to that was; we need to throw up 63 points on WMU and hold them to a touchdown or two. And then put 35 or more on ND. (assuming we can outscore them....you know what I mean) Will we be back on the radar with a performance like that right out of the gates?
If we did that, there would definitely be some media buzz about us being on the right track, and we'd probably shoot up the rankings quite a bit.
I think between being Michigan (yeah, yeah, Michigan arrogance... I think it applies here though) and Rodriguez's past successes, people would really start taking us seriously if we just have a couple solid offensive performances and good defensive play. If we can show that this team works like a well-oiled machine, no one will be able to take us for granted anymore.
Good point, I think RR past successes would have more to do with it than the Michigan tradition, right?
I think so. I guess the Michigan tradition would do less for their standings at the time. It would probably help us out more in our initial rankings in subsequent years. Whether that's a good thing or not is up for debate I suppose. (I'd rather be highly ranked to start a season just so I don't have to read post after post on here bitching about how we got screwed...)
But if Michigan is projected to be a top team, then we hear: "Are you kidding me? They ranked Michigan #7?!?! Everyone else pegs us at least for #4! They're full of @#$%! OMG what crap."
Some people will complain about pre-season rankings regardless. Overall, though, I agree with you: I would much prefer to start out ranked highly because that at least implies that the team has some measure of respectability, whereas starting anywhere outside the Top 25 means that we probably endured a pretty "meh" season the previous year.
Just winning those two, let alone scoring 100 points between them, would get Michigan at least into the Others Receiving Votes realm. If they pants Charlie Weiss & Co. it would be the lead story all week long, as every slope-brow sports writer in the country tries to atone for a year of Rodriguez bashing.
It's all too much to hope for.
....too much to hope for, but why not? We were a little surpised by the negatives of last year, why not be surprised by some postives this year!(gosh, I am 29 and feel like a 10 year old on Christmas Eve....let's just hope it is that RC car and not some socks this time!)
Let's just win.
....it will be good enough, I think. Western will get some credit from the national media, and a victory over Notre Dame will hold sway as well. Of course, how we do it will probably come into play.
However, I expect Notre Dame to be preseason top 20, so beating them will get Michigan close to the top 25, which is good enough, since the following two weeks would probably make Michigan 4-0 going to East Lansing, and I'm pretty sure Michigan'd (?) be ranked by then.
"However, I expect Notre Dame to be preseason top 20"
man I hope not
I want everyone to know that I am not looking past WMU or ND as I think ND will be very tough to beat. I am just wondering what it will take to get back to the ESPN Gameday lengthy pieces.
be in "prove it" mode. Ws over WMU and Dame would be more important for the team's confidence more than anything else. Yes, talking heads would have something to talk about, but I doubt M cracks the Top 25 unless they get by State undefeated. Even if that did happen, it wouldn't change the fact that Forcier/Robinson are true freshmen or Sheridan is a former walk-on, or our place kicking could be an adventure, or are safeties may be Oh-Crap-Tate-Floyd-Dell-Benn-Dammit! etc.—meaning, questions will persist about this team until they show consistency over the course of several weeks against quality opponents in the middle and latter half of the schedule.
the case you laid out. Maybe we don't deserve good pub until we are 5-0 or 6-0....and that seems like a pipe dream right now.
After last year's struggles, the thought of this team putting up 30+ points every week is tantalizing. Consensus seems to be we'll see many more big plays on the offensive side of the ball. And hopefully a corresponding decline in the number of "WTF was that"s. Should translate on the scoreboard, no?
A win over Notre Dame will get us back in the limelight, because it means that we will start off the season 4-0.
I get the feeling like many are feeling optimistic about the team and specifically about the first 4 games. I too feel like UM can win these games but suggesting 63 points against WMU is a little out there. They will be a very good challenge. I just hope and pray that we can win our opener. After that I will feel so much better about the rest of the season.
...their defense is putrid. I see little wrong with predicting 63. The problem question is how many does Michigan give up. And for all I care, the correct answer is 62 or less.
We're almost certainly starting a true freshman at QB. Predicting him to lead the offense to NINE touchdowns (something our program hasn't done in over a decade) is a bit much.
In past years, it seemed like Michigan started of slowly and cautiously as not to reveal anything to Notre Dame. If RR says "to hell with it" and scores 60 points, he is setting the tempo for the season. Players will have confidence in the offense and more importantly, the qb. However, everyone will start to have faith in the RR system, since our QB won't have to throw 5-6 touchdown passes due to RBs taking over the game.
There comes a point in football programs where they have signature wins, I thought it was the comeback against Wisconsin last year, but it wasn't. I would think having a resounding first win will be labeled as such. If we win 65-35, then play Notre Dame to a tough 38-35 win, then that will be a great 2 week stretch.
My point has nothing to do with expectations and everything to do with the facts that 1) we're probably not good enough to put up 60 on anybody (at least not in week 1) and 2) WMU is not the absolute pushover you seem to be making them out to be.
past any team on the schedule. 100% against all.
A 4-0 start is not probable but if it happens I'm looking at the fringe of the top 25. It's easier for storied programs to move up.
We'll be in the top 25 at 4-0.
I think Michigan should just start at #14 every year.
The last two times that happened were 1997 and 2006.
We just need to win them. If we get to 2-0, we'll almost certainly be 4-0 two weeks later (which would surely get us ranked). Anyway, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves; WMU is not a gimme by any means and ND is at best a tossup.
63 points under the Force in his first game? I like to fill the glass half full too but can we at least be a bit realistic?
No, we cannot.
I really think we can put up 48 against Western. They lose a lot on their DL from last year. They can't be much better than our 2nd team from the Spring Game. And Tate shredded them.
with nothing but Freshman QB's & Sheridan we will be throwing enough to score 63 points. This game will be 75% rushing the ball to keep WMU's bat crazy offense off the field. I see MIIIIIIIIIICH winning 31-14 or 24-10. BOOK IT.
What's the spread anyway? jamie mac?
I hate to say it but I really do not give any props at all to rankings. In 05 we were #3 preseason and went 7-5 in 06 #13 preseason and finished 11-2 in 07 we were #5 preseason and went 9-4. Wiscy was #8 when we played them last year and we certainly set the record straight on that. Rankings are nothing but what some people (who really don't watch the teams anyway) think of the team. I remember in 06 Urban Meyer said that he watched the UM tO$U game and that was the first time he had been ale to watch either team that year. The sad thing is that he had been voting all year on where to rank these teams. I know it is nice to have that little number to the left of your team name but I think Bo had it right when he said that the only thing you can control is winning your confrence becasue that simply went by confrence wins and losses.