2009 Michigan Footall Through a Post-Bowl Prism
On a team that featured so much youth and inexperience (cf. USC, about which Ivan Maisel claims one PAC-10 coach states USC's four-loss season is attributable to their youth, despite having a virtual NFL-quality roster), the absence of talented and experienced upperclassmen can’t be ignored (e.g., Minor, Molk, Hemingway, Odoms, Johnson, etc.) as well as nagging injuries by regular players.
However, I wonder if in retrospect a case can be made that –- subsequent to the Big 10’s showing in the bowl games –- Michigan’s second half “collapse” was in large measure a consequence of the caliber of competition we now know they played. At the time, it seems many assumed our team was losing to overrated conference teams. As it turns out, the top half of our conference was brutal, and yet:
• We lost by 2 (30-28) to an Iowa team that shut down #9 Georgia Tech 24-14 in the Orange Bowl and finished #7 in the rankings.
• We lost by 6 (26-20) to a Michigan State team that was minus 14 players yet still had a 4th quarter lead against an emotional 9-4 #24 Texas Tech team in the Alamo Bowl.
• We lost by 2 (38-36) to a Purdue team we were beating 24-10 at halftime. (For that three-game stretch we were being outscored 21-3 in the second half.)
The only three games in which Michigan was clearly outmatched – at least in the second half of the game (Illinois doesn’t count) – were to #9 Penn State (lost by 25), #15 Wisconsin (by 21) and #5 Ohio State (by 11). Those were losses to legitimately powerful (Top 15) teams who proved it to us and everyone else in their bowl games:
• Penn State defeated #12 LSU 19-17 in the Capital One Bowl,
• Wisconsin overpowered #15 Miami 20-14 in the Champs Sports Bowl, and
• Ohio State defeated #7 Oregon 26-17 in the Rose Bowl.
Despite the back end of the schedule featuring our toughest opponents, we consistently closed the margin of defeat. It certainly doesn’t change the outcome, but does it perhaps demonstrate that -- with more experience, a bit more talent at key positions, more maturity in a single defensive system, and a little luck (re: relative strength of conference opponents, health, etc.) we may not be as far away from approaching top-25-caliber status as we initially thought?
January 11th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^
We played decent with some of the league's best this year, and that hopefully bodes well for the future. At the same time, moral victories will not cut it this year.
January 11th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^
So, what happened against MSU, Purdue and Illinois?
Michigan finished last in the Big Ten. No sugar-coating that.
January 11th, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^
We can’t discount those losses - two of our losses this year were to underdogs.
Before we consider Michigan as an isolated case, I think it’s at least intriguing to put oneself in the seat of a Notre Dame fan. You’re looking at the recruiting classes you’ve had during Weis’ tenure (2008: #2, 2007: #8, 2006: #8). Why did they lose six games this year, all but one to underdogs as I recall?
Why did USC lose four games this year to underdogs – including losses to Stanford and Washington, teams they clearly should have beaten handily. Most would agree it wasn’t a lack of talent (either players or coaches). It was a strange stew of miscues, mistakes, injuries, loss of focus, emotional tailspins – all symptoms of youth and inexperience, even in a talent-rich, well-coached system.
It goes without saying that we had a dearth of talent at several key positions and a lack of experience at even more. I'm certainly not suggesting there's an explanation that will make the season magically become better than it was. My point was, having the benefit of some distance from the season and knowing what we now know about the strength of our schedule, does it change our perspective any on the relative strength or growth of the team?
January 11th, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^
Illinois count? That 2 point loss to Iowa seems like an eternity ago. My prism showed tOSU, Wisconsin and Iowa looking better at seasons end...not so much for the good guys.
January 11th, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
that Iowa fans would disagree that Iowa looked better at seasons end, considering Stanzi was injured and they dropped two of their last three games.
Michigan played an inspired game against Iowa and fell just a little short.....
January 11th, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^
I should've been more clear. By seasons end, I meant Post Bowl, kinda like what the title of the thread said. I won't speak for the Iowa fans, but it looked like they were kinda okay with what was happening at the Orange Bowl.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^
If Stanzi doesn't get injured, they probably beat Northwestern, and have a shot to go undefeated by beating Ohio State.
Iowa fans may have been happy about the bowl outcome because the rest of the season was history. However, in retrospect, I'm sure there is some "what ifs" floating around the Iowa message boards.
As far as your original comment, you implied that they looked better at season's end versus when they played Michigan and you are basing that solely on the bowl game. Apparently you missed them win at then #5 Penn State two weeks before they played Michigan and at Wisconsin in a rivalry game the week after they played Michigan.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:00 PM ^
I did miss the Iowa-Wisconsin game. I'll also agree that the Penn St. game was a bigger win perhaps than the Orange Bowl based on rankings, and it being on the road. Stanzi played poorly in that game though. It was pretty much Defense and Special Teams that won that game. I just felt that they were clicking on all cylinders by the time they got to the bowl game. That was really what I meant about those three teams. To me, they all looked like they played complete games against quality opponents. But then again, I haven't looked through a prism in ages...I may have just had a flash back...who knows.
January 11th, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^
...is because I was attempting to create some rational understanding for where we really were in 2009, reasons we didn't achieve success in 2009, and a logical framework upon which we could reasonably anticipate success going forward in 2010 and beyond. Simply stated, the Illinois game defies all the categories. In fact, even on this board the post-mortem was so gruesome that categories like kittens and pandas and otters would not suffice and someone proposed "the wombat of frustration" to portray the day.
Who can explain why we held them to -15 yards in the 2nd quarter, had a 6-point lead, then on the first series of the 2nd half had a 77-yard touchdown pass to Roundtree reversed, four attempts to score from the 1-yard line stopped, a safety when the snap goes through the end zone, and the whole thing unravel when the Illini march 99 yards in 3 minutes, capped off by a 70-yard scamper by Leshoure.
The players explained the outcome in purely emotional terms: they were too relaxed; they came out after halftime without taking the opponent seriously and then never could regain their focus after that series of unfortunate events (with apologies to Lemony Snickett) in which Illinois not only stopped Michigan but scored three successive touchdowns. We can second-guess a couple key calls, but the flow -- and outcome -- of the game (more than any we played all year) seemed to hinge primarily on the successive impact of emotional events.
January 11th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^
MGoMoralVictories are the best victories of all.
EDIT: Not many people based thier opinion on Michigan as a function of what they thought about the Big Ten. Most people reacted to the product on the field.
January 11th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
Looking at the schedule I don't see an easy path to 5 wins in conference play, but its the only way to show competitiveness in the Big Ten after two years of ignominy ...
January 11th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
We lost by 2 (30-28) to an Iowa team that shut down #9 Georgia Tech 24-14 in the Orange Bowl and finished #7 in the rankings.
• We lost by 6 (26-20) to a Michigan State team that was minus 14 players yet still had a 4th quarter lead against an emotional 9-4 #24 Texas Tech team in the Alamo Bowl.
• We lost by 2 (38-36) to a Purdue team we were beating 24-10 at halftime. (For that three-game stretch we were being outscored 21-3 in the second half.)
Really bugged me the most this season. We really played a lousy 1st half in the MSU game and I don't know if it was our offensive line not giving Tate the time he needed or Tate was trying to do to much and ended up getting sacked two times in a row. The comeback though really proved what Forcier is capable of in high pressure situations in the ending. He really played like a one man army and threw the crucial pass needed in the endzone to send it into overtime. Unfortunatley he threw a bad ball and it got tipped then intercepted. Just a really bad break but when you have trouble not scoring in the 1st half and half to make a comeback of that magnitude to win you usually end up with a loss. This was very evident in the Green BAY vs Arizona game last night. Packers had a horrible 1st half, made an incredible comeback to force overtime yet failed in the end. It is a very difficult situation when you place yourself in that spot.
January 11th, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
If, for example, we played a 100 game season this year and nitpicked any 12 game sample, I'm sure we'll find the majority of those 12-game samples to be somewhere in the range of 5-7 and 8-4. We sucked for very obvious reasons, but this team simply imploded more often than other bowl-qualifying teams. Our turnover ratio was simply atrocious. Fix that, and you'll have everyone talking about how "resurgent" Michigan will be next year - when all we're really gonna do is have a repeat of this year minus a whole lot of fumbles and picks.
I know it's "if if if if," but the reality is this team - a team of freshmen, sophmores, Jordan Kovacs, Kevin Leach, 2 pieces of glass at RB, and two 18-yr olds playing QB in the Big Ten - beats both two top 10 teams in Iowa and Ohio State if they didn't turn it over an astonishing 5 times in each game. Anybody who doubts RichRod's worth as our coach needs to watch those performances, note the excellent gameplans, and pray that Tate learns how to tuck a football when he's escaping pressure.
EDIT: And in the spirit of the OP - yes, the Big Ten was indeed a very good conference this year. But that argument is fruitless to anyone outside the midwest until one of us is lifting the silver trophy.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
That is just a crazy - a 100 game season would take about 2 years.
/sarcasm
January 11th, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^
I don't think I have ever seen a more apt (or frustrating) description that so clearly encapsulates the careers of Minor and Brown.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:06 PM ^
Tate has got to protect the ball for this team to improve. D-Rob has got to protect the ball and he also has to have more touches. RR will instill this in the spring. He has some of his players that he can trust in now and it is time to start playing the way he intends this offense to be FAST!
January 11th, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^
Michigan has one of the best coaches in college football who will show he was worth the wait in the next two seasons.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:42 PM ^
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'm not sure he gets another season with anything less than about 7 wins. The defense could be his undoing unless there is significant improvement on that side of the ball.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
Illinois most definitely counts. You can't let one play destroy any and all composure you have as a team. That game was the first game in which I started to doubt Rodriguez as a coach, but I think he will use the last two years to build our program back to where it needs to be. I'm glad the Big Ten did well in the bowl season and I'm optimistic when looking at the competition and what they're returning. The season and future still rides on the defense, though.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
That is the team we should have beat! Too many careless mistakes and sloppy play in the 2nd half cost us that one. We should have been bowl bound this past season. I just hope the young defense gels by b10 play, and that Tate can hold on to the football. Who knows, may be if we start strong again this season (after tough wins against UCONN and ND) and enter b10 play undefeated the team may have enough maturity and confidence to split b10 play, at least I hope so!!!
January 12th, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^
Need to beat someone with a winning record, get to at least a winning record in the Big Ten and get to a bowl game. Then in 2011 compete for top tier position in the conference and New Years Day bowl game.