2011 Schedule: Potential Win-Loss Record & Impact on Coach

Submitted by StephenRKass on

So when I was talking to one of the coaches at Notre Dame - Ohio, he mentioned the gripe that OSU fans have about Tressel. From their perspective, Tressel basically won with players who were already there when he came. Now, success begets success in recruiting, and Ohio State continue to cruise with one or two losses a year. The problem is, many OSU fans don't really think Tressel is ever going to win a national championship. But you don't cut loose a coach who is only losing a game a year. I think many of us would be thrilled to have Ohio State's problems. Whatever.

But our conversation got me to thinking about next year's Michigan schedule. As has been mentioned already, almost regardless of who coaches, Michigan could win its first 10 games next year. I wonder if some of the RR haters really are campaigning to get rid of Rodriguez now, knowing that it will be a lot harder with to fire him with a 10 - 2 record. It would be cruel and unfair not to let the coaches and team the chance to prove themselves next year.

Personally, I desperately hope that RR stays at Michigan. Yes, our defense needs serious work. But I truly believe that with the added experience, and the return of Woolfolk, and the incoming class, our defense will see massive improvement. While the defense won't be awesome, they will be more than good enough for us to compete in all our games. This would happen even if Gerg were to stay and wasn't the fall guy.

I badly want RR to be given the chance to run the table next year. Why? Not just because I think it would be fair. But I also think his players love  him, and that with just a little luck, and getting through one more year, we will be competing at the highest level for years to come.

in contrast to Tressel, I believe that RR will truly be competitive in big bowl games. We just have to be patient. Now isn't the time to panic. RR came into a crummy situation, and should not be a sacrifice to the blood lust of the mindless hoards.

There are two analogies that come to mind. I'm thinking first, of Return of the Jedi, where Lando Calrissian says, "Don't worry, my friend's down there. He'll have that shield down in time." That's exactly what happens. If we're patient with RR, I fully believe we'll topple the empire in Columbus, and bring jubilation to Michigan fans for many years.

The bad analogy is to Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, when Robert Brewster activates Skynet, plunging the world into a nuclear wasteland. Pulling the plug on RR would do the same thing to Michigan. It has taken years to get to where we are now. To change course would cause havoc that could last for many, many years. I am trusting in DB to stay the course.

NathanFromMCounty

November 30th, 2010 at 7:59 PM ^

...most of the worthwhile programs leaving the confrence before Harbaugh did it?  Its no coincidence that Dave Wannestadt (a failure as a head coach everywhere he's gone) got good at Pitt at almost the same time as Rodriquez got great at WV *and* Miami and VT left.

 

Just saying.

 

And is that a Saved by the Bell profile pic?  Or am I getting old and need new glasses.

Logan88

November 30th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^

I agree!

That is as long as Ohio State, Iowa and MSU leave the Big Ten and are replaced by a bunch of mediocre MAC teams. That would be exactly like what happened in the Big East when RR made his great "leap" from an 8 win coach to an 11 win coach.

RR's improvement probably had more to do with the emasculation of the Big East as VaTech, Miami and BC bolted for the ACC then it did with any magical leap he made from year 4 to year 5.

g_reaper3

November 30th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

Expecting to start 10-0 is pretty unrealistic.  I think we did that 3x over the last 30 years (86, 97 and 06).   I agree that the hardest two games are at the end, but we should all be ecstatic if M starts 10-0 next year. 

Brady2Terrell

November 30th, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^

How big of an idiot are you?  Talking about expected performance v. the schedule next year is one thing, but trying to say that Tressel can't win national championships or bowl games is ludicrous.  OSU has owned the Fiesta Bowl for the last decade, won the national championship in 2002/03 and won the Rose Bowl last year against this year's #1, Oregon.  I mean, wtf?

I put this in the same category as the poster a couple days ago who said that Michigan shouldn't go back to the days of losing bowl games all the time like we did in the '80s; calling out Tressel and Bo as not enough for your program are surefire signs that you're a mouth-breather who doesn't know squat about college football.

bronxblue

November 30th, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^

I agree that knocking Tressel isn't necessary, but until last year he had lost three straight bowl games and was embarrassed in the two MNC games.  Even last year, the "big" win over Oregon wasn't nearly as dominant as people tried to make it out to be, and this year shapes up to be another very good one but at no point did anyone think this was a title contender.  I think Tressel is going the way of most elite coaches - at some point, they are lulled into that 9-10 win range with very good teams but always with a couple of brain farts.  You see that with Stoops at Oklahome, Carr at UM, Mack Brown at Texas, etc.  OSU will always be a good program because of Ohio's recruiting prowess, the history, the quality of the program, etc., but going forward today, I think the ceiling for UM is higher than OSU under Tressel.

StephenRKass

November 30th, 2010 at 8:11 PM ^

If you read my OP, the Tressel complaints came in the State of Ohio (day after Thanksgiving) from OSU fans. And one of the fans was a coach who has had OSU sideline access. He mentioned that even some of the OSU players roll their eyes at Tressel's play calling on the offense. . . in a bowl game! Tressel certainly has been moderately successful. And after the last several years, we would love to be in any bowl, and have any wins. But I don't think that all OSU fans think Tressel can walk on water and is the best thing since sliced bread. They feel he wins with superior talent, and not because of the X's and O's.

psychomatt

November 30th, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^

If we fire RR and hire Harbaugh, we likely become OSU under Tressel (i.e. win 9-10 games per year but are never the best team in the country). If we keep RR and it turns out he can actually put together a defense, we become Oregon 2010.

BondQuest

November 30th, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^

...the team will be stronger on defense and the offense ought to be doing better also.

There is a lot to be said for experience. Bringing in any new coaches means some of the players will be back to square one trying to learn a new system again. That will hurt the team.

I think we are better off keeping the coaching staff intact because the players are used to what is asked of them. The players who have been there these past two years will help a lot with teaching the new guys who either redshirted this year, or are freshmen next year.

UMSwoosh

November 30th, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^

I am as confused as the next fan about whether Rich should stay or go, but I don't hear anyone talking about the state of the program that he inherited. Fans would have let Lloyd roll out 4 or 5 more 4 loss seasons with not a peep.

From 2002-2010 we had 43 less recruits than West Virginia. We had consecutive classes of 16 and 17 recruits and never had a class over 23 until Rich Arrived. I don't know much, but I know that if you have 85 scholarships to give and you divide that by 4 years, you should average 21.25 a year. Carr's largest class was 23! I don't agree with Saban style recruiting, but I don't think Michigan should ever be in a position where they don't give out all scholarships. This is Lloyds fault. If you account for Early Entry picks and everyone else stayed, we still wouldn't have been able to fill the 85 slots with the average of 19.5 recruits his last 6 classes.

What happens with Rich is out of our control, but can we please admit that Lloyd Carr was simply the status quo, limited upside, limited downside, and definitely nothing exciting.

tf

November 30th, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^

But what if you divide 85/5?  I think you're overlooking the fact that Michigan was once in a position where we didn't have to rush freshmen onto the field and redshirts were extremely common, meaning a lot of guys stayed on scholarship for 5 years.  Looking at Lloyd's last six years (2002-2007), they featured 14, 17, 9, 9, 19, and 7 fifth-year seniors.  That's an average of 12.5 per year.  If we say that in a typical five year span 62 guys play five years, that would leave 23 four-year scholarships to fill over four years, which would mean a typical class would be about 18 kids.

The math may be a bit squirrelly, and I can't say I followed recruiting back then like I do now (I'm not sure it was possible to follow recruiting back then like people do now), but I don't really recall any situations where Coach Carr left scholarships unused.

That doesn't mean I disagree that the cupboard was relatively bare when Rodriguez took over, and I'm lobbying neither for nor against another year of Rodriguez next year.  I'm just pointing out that Carr was not a fool who decided to handicap himself and the team by trying to win with fewer scholarship athletes than other schools.  Schools, like West Virginia, who offered more scholarships either had fewer redshirts or more attrition (transfers, academic failures, injuries, early entries, etc).

UMSwoosh

December 1st, 2010 at 7:36 AM ^

Certainly looking at it from 85/5 would put a different perspective on things. However, when you look at major programs averaging 22-24 recruits a year and on top of that having a class of over 25 at least once every four years, it makes me wonder where the disconnect is. How can we expect to be successful with less players period? There are a lot of variables, players leaving, injuries, etc... but the variables lead to attrition not addition. In fact the only thing you can control effectively is the number of people you bring in. It's just unrealistic to look at two classes totaling 33 players, when some major college programs are signing that amount in one year, illegal or not. 43 more players over that period of time is a big difference.

Black and Blue

November 30th, 2010 at 6:54 PM ^

 What gives people the perception that our defense will even be good next year?  Our defense will still be 'young' and vast improvement is far from garrentee.  In addition, whats to say that the defense even has the potential to great? 

There are little to no signs of it right now, just look at JT Floyd he is a RS soph this year and did pretty poorly.  Whats to say the whole secondary next year wont look the same?  Going from 100+ ranked D to 70s isnt going to win us 10 games let alone 8.

bronxblue

November 30th, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^

As crazy as it sounds, I would KILL for EMU's pass defensive ranking (73rd) because it is 35 yards better than this squad's.  Honestly, even an improvement to the 70s in pass defense means about 35-40 yards less passing per game, so that means more 3rd-down stops, more INTs, and more opportunities for the offense to take short fields.  Those are all hugely positive steps for this defense, because then the front line can bring more pressure without needing to blanket the secondary with 5-6 DBs, the LBs are probably tackling in space better and turning the wheel route of death into the wheel route of 5-7 yards, etc.  Yes, the defense will still be objectively bad next year , but it will be an improving unit with depth, not the crater it was this season. 

NathanFromMCounty

November 30th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^

...teams where just running out the clock on EMU in *more* games than us this year (EMU got *destroyed* in 5 games this year, I'm talking Wisky vs. Indiana destroyed here people) so they might not have passed as much.  And by the way, I'm an Alum so thank you so much for bringing back this season's memories  To quote a certain Miracle Man, "While you're at it, why don't you just give me a nice paper cut then pour lemon juice in it" :)

tmurda1234

November 30th, 2010 at 8:02 PM ^

RR goes 9-3 in 2011, and goes 11-1 in 2012.  I did the math, and this is all based on statistics... and wishful thinking... and hope... and Denard.  Mostly, that is based on Denard.

MICHIGAN58

November 30th, 2010 at 9:16 PM ^

Totally agree, most people said we would be 6and 6 this year and guess what, we are 7 and 5 and I believe in Rich Rod now more than I did the day we hired him. I hope we don't let him go and if we do I pray that we don't get Harbaugh whos defense SUCKED last year but huh he gets a new d cordinator and the PAC 10 sucks and all the sudden he's BO. Put there career numbers side by side and you tell me who you think is better. Another thing I like is running QBs don't go to the NFL early very often.

funkywolve

December 1st, 2010 at 12:32 AM ^

Actually Tressell's done pretty good in big bowl games, he just took a beating for the back to back BCS title game losses:

2002: won Fiesta

2003: won Fiesta

2005: won Fiesta

2006: lost BCS title game

2007: lost BCS title game

2008: lost Fiesta

2009: won Rose

 

That's 4-3 in BCS bowl games.