2011 schedule: Cakewalk or Gauntlet?

Submitted by Logan88 on

 

I have seen a few posts today pointing to the 2011 schedule as setting up favorably for UM next season prompting some of these posters to predict a strong season (10+ wins) for UM.

I would be interested to see the overall opinion of the board on this subject. Do you think the 2011 schedule is favorable or challenging next season?

I believe that the 2011 schedule is actually more difficult than this season. I will list the games played in 2010 vs. the games in 2011 as I see them matching up in terms of challenge starting with easiest to hardest (2011 schedule):

  1. UMass v. Eastern Michigan -- solid FCS team v. terrible MAC team == push (UM wins both)
  2. Bowling Green v. W. Michigan -- terrible MAC team v. bad MAC team == push (UM wins both easily)
  3. Indiana v. Minnesota -- bad Big 10 team v. terrible Big 10 team == Minnesota should be an easier game (UM wins both)
  4. UConn v. SDSU -- mediocre Big East team v. mediocre MWC team == SDSU should be a slightly easier game (UM wins both)
  5. Purdue 2010 v. Purdue 2011 -- mediocre PU  v. mediocre PU == advantage 2011 because game will be in the Big House (UM wins 2011, 2010 ????)
  6. Notre Dame 2010 v. Notre Dame 2011 -- bad ND team v. mediocre ND team == more difficult in 2011 because ND will be in 2nd season under Kelly and, presumably, Christ will play the whole game (UM wins both...maybe)
  7. Illinois 2010 v. Illinois 2011 -- above average v. good(?) == advantage 2010 as we will be playing them at their place in 2011 (UM loses both IMO)
  8. PSU 2010 v. N'Western 2011 -- below average Big 10 v. average Big 10 == advantage 2010 (UM loses both IMO)
  9. Iowa 2010 v. Iowa 2011 -- good v. above average == push (Iowa will lose their starting QB, but the game will be in Iowa City; UM loses both IMO)
  10. MSU 2010 v. MSU 2011 -- good v. good == advantage 2010 because we got them in AA, next season will be in EL (UM loses both IMO)
  11. Wisconsin v. Nebraska -- good v. good == push (get both in AA, but it won't matter as they are both much better than UM; UM loses both IMO)
  12. OSU 2010 v. OSU 2011 -- good v. good == advantage 2011 (game will be in AA in 2011...it won't matter. UM loses both IMO)

In summary, for 2011 I see the schedule thusly:

Should win -- EMU, WMU, Minnesota, SDSU and Purdue (5 wins)

Toss ups -- ND, Illinois and N'Western (1 win, 2 losses)

Likely losses -- Iowa, MSU, Nebraska and OSU (4 losses)

That would mean a 6-6 record with an optimistic goal of say 8-4 if UM wins all of the toss ups.

Thoughts? Predictions?

 

 

Loukdogg

November 1st, 2010 at 8:20 PM ^

I'm assuming this was what happens when Michigan hires Brady Hoke and Denard transfers after RR leaves.  How does a top offensive club with almost everyone return and a terrible young defense with no where to go but up not do better than this?  If I thought we were this hopeless I wouldn't be on this site everyday.

Penn St was incredibly depressing and pointed to an obvious need to make major changes on the defensive side of the ball in regards to coaching.  However, to say we won't get average on defense means that Rich Rod is inept.  I don't believe that.

jshclhn

November 1st, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^

You would think Notre Dame won't be egg laying like substance next year.  Northwestern and Illinois are always wildcards - they could beat any of 9 Big Ten teams on a given week and lose to any of 9 Big Ten teams the next.  It's hard to imagine MSU and Iowa being better next year, but I can't imagine them tanking either.

So, I see your point - our schedule this year is pretty similar to next year, especially considering how UConn and ND were actually surprising bad this year.

Logan88

November 1st, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^

Thank you for actually responding.

For anyone else who wants to merely tack on another "Dude, too early!", please move along and read another post. I explicitly stated that this was in response to a few posts I saw regarding UM's "favorable" 2011 schedule and I just wanted to get a feel for the opinions of people who were actually interested in speculating about this topic. If you are not interested, why bother to post in the topic at all?

tpilews

November 1st, 2010 at 8:02 PM ^

I can't imagine Iowa tanking either, but they have to replace Stanzi, who has been pretty darn good this year. Also, DJK is gone as are 8 other senior starters, of which, 5 are on defense.

MSU is also replacing 10 starters (6 offense, 4 defense). Both OTs and center are gone. That's going to be a hit on their run game and pass protection.

Nebraska is replacing 11 starters.

OSU is replacing 11 starters including 7 from defense, though they seem to reload pretty well.

Anything can happen next year.

jmblue

November 1st, 2010 at 6:28 PM ^

A favorable schedule is not necessarily a cakewalk.  It's favorable in that most of the more difficult games will be at home, and that PSU and Wisconsin drop off the schedule.  And while we do travel to MSU and Iowa, those two lose quite a few starters after this year.   Under normal circumstances, the combination of this schedule and the fact that we return 18-19 starters would have a lot of people picking us to win the conference.

MGolem

November 1st, 2010 at 6:30 PM ^

That we will be trotting out the same team as this year. In previous campaigns we would be drooling over this schedule with 8 home games and Iowa, MSU and OSU fielding weaker squads than this year. If we improve as we should this is a minimum 8 win schedule, new coach or not.

Hoek

November 1st, 2010 at 6:33 PM ^

Really, we still have four games left in 2010(maybe five) Plus we have an entire Bastketball, hockey, softball, baseball, swimming, vollyball, golf, and track, to worry about before next season.

MGoShoe

November 1st, 2010 at 6:33 PM ^

...is that many things will happen to all of these teams (including Michigan) between now and the beginning of the 2011 season.  At least wait until you know what each of these teams is losing and gaining before you make assumptions about team quality.

WolvinLA2

November 1st, 2010 at 6:48 PM ^

We return, essentially, 9 of 11 defensive starters (Woolfolk in for Rogers).  One of the two we actually need to replace is Banks, one of our least productive starters.  So much of the defense this year are frosh and sophs, players who stand to improve the most from year to year.  Our secondary will not only be void of freshmen starters, it will be void of first year players altogether.  Likely, every contributor on our D next fall will have significant playing experience, or is such a good player they're able to beat our multiple experienced players.

Our offense returns 9 of 11 starters.  I don't even need to go into that aspect, we should be more than fine on offense.  We return all of our specialists with an extra year of fine tuning. 

Needless to say, our team should be far better than this year based on this alone.  It's impossible to predict whether the 2011 version of M will beat teams like Northwestern, Illinois, Notre Dame and so on.  We might go 7-5, or we might mop the floor with our schedule next year. 

preed1

November 1st, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^

Most people would agree preseason

uconn- toss up

nd- toss up

umass- win

bowling green- win

indiana- win

msu- win (probably toss up, but for arguement sake)

iowa- loss

penn st- toss up (probably most people pre season predicted the loss

and yet we getting the pitch forks out for winning 2 toss ups, losing 1 "win" that really is a tosing a toss up that some people predicted a loss

WolvinLA2

November 1st, 2010 at 7:34 PM ^

Yes, but this was all assuming UConn, ND, and Penn State were top 25 teams, or close to it, as they were expected.  In reality, none of these teams would sniff the top 25.  None even have a winning record.

If we were 5-3 because we played 5 top 25 teams so far, people wouldn't be as upset.  As it stands, we're 5-3 after playing 2 top 25 teams and a bunch of teams praying for (or given up on) bowl eligibility. 

Tha Stunna

November 1st, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^

UConn - much worse than we thought, less close than we expected

ND - much worse than we thought

Umass (3-2 in conference) - about what we thought, but we did much worse than expected

Bowling green - this was fine

Indiana - closer than expected

MSU - better than we thought, less close than expected

Iowa - about right

PSU - much worse than we though, and we did much worse than we thought we would

I see two very bad performances, two bad performances, two reasonable performances, and two solid wins.  Given that the most recent performance was either the worst or second worst overall, that's reason for concern.  Feel free to be ignorant about reality though.

goblue16

November 1st, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^

I totally agree preed1. Most people probably had Michigan starting out 5-3 anyway. The problem is that this defense cant stop anyone. If it ends like last year RR is out for sure. Everyone just needs to be patient. Everthing will be clear in 4 weeks.

nazooq

November 1st, 2010 at 6:56 PM ^

It's not just the record.  It's the way Michigan is losing.  They aren't competitive against Big Ten teams that aren't Indiana.  At no point in the fourth quarter against MSU, Iowa, or PSU did Michigan have the ball with a chance to tie or take the lead.

MCGamechanger

November 1st, 2010 at 7:25 PM ^

I think that a lot of this may depend on whether or not we can get to a bowl game this year. The bowl game will offer us an extra 15 practices which is another spring. Look at the strides Denard made in the spring with the practices. If the young defensive kids had the extra practices a bowl game would allow, then they could gain a lot more experience heading into the spring.

john22

November 1st, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^

dude we still have 4 games left.I want to ask this question,as Michigan fans do you guys want to see another rebuilding process?If we can win 3 of are last 5 games,next year will be a whole lot better.

jmblue

November 1st, 2010 at 7:46 PM ^

Changing coaches does not have to involve a rebuilding process.  RR completely cleaned house (save Fred Jackson), lost a ton of transfers, and installed a radically different offensive scheme.  That may not happen again.

Ziff72

November 1st, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^

You look at this all wrong.    The MAC teams are all a who cares we will destroy them all next year.

Iowa will be a shell of their current team next year.

Removing Penn St and Wisconsin with NW and Minn is a win

ND is at home

MSU should be ok next year because they reatin Cousins and those RB's but they lose a lot of d talent.  

The main point though is not that the schedule is all that easier it is that we will be better so even a similar schedule will result in a much better record.

tenerson

November 1st, 2010 at 8:42 PM ^

It's too early but I will throw this out there. Iowa will be mediocre at best next year. They like to keep it secret but they lose a ton of that defense and they lose Stanzi. I think they finish 7-5 and it could be worse.

SwordDancer710

November 1st, 2010 at 8:48 PM ^

If we can put up even a mediocre defense next year, we'll do well. The offense will improve, and as long as we can get a few more stops against teams like MSU and Iowa, we should compete for the Big Ten title.

Tater

November 1st, 2010 at 9:13 PM ^

This year, there is no team in the Big Ten that does not have flaws to exploit.  That is part of why MSU is doing so well.  Basically, the Big Ten is setting up to be a conference where a truly elite team could have a pretty easy time of it and a very good team could be a contender, but a mediocre one could have trouble breaking .500 in the conference. 

So, the question is whether Michigan will be an elite team next year, a very good team, or a mediocre one. 

Elite = 13-0

Very good = 10-3 or 11-2

Mediocre =  8-5

Shitty defense + bad breaks = 5-7

If it appears that I am fence-sitting so much that my butt looks like a cross, I apologize,  but it is too early to figure out WTF is going to happen next year.  We don't even know what is going to happen this year yet.

 

markusr2007

November 1st, 2010 at 11:39 PM ^

Most of them will be upperclassmen (juniors) with 24 games under the belt.

Few, if any, of UM's opponents next year will field this.

The defense will remain a liability, but not to the same extent.

Offensively, if Michigan get a healthy set of threats at tailback, then things will be humming.

Nebraska, Iowa, MSU and Ohio State are seriously winnable games IMO next year. No Indiana sucks, but no Wisconsin is a huge plus.

9-3 is a likely outcome IMO.