AP Poll: Michigan 18, coaches: 17

Submitted by orobs on

 


 

 
1 Alabama
Alabama (56)
Record: 3-0
PV Rank
1
Points
1,496
2 Oregon
Oregon (4)
Record: 3-0
2
1,418
3 Clemson
Record: 3-0
3
1,340
4 Ohio State
Record: 4-0
4
1,320
5 Stanford
Record: 3-0
5
1,270
6 LSU
Record: 4-0
6
1,167
7 Louisville
Record: 4-0
7
1,088
8 Florida State
Record: 3-0
8
1,049
9 Georgia
Record: 2-1
9
1,029
10 Texas A&M
Record: 3-1
10
1,011
11 Oklahoma State
Record: 3-0
11
849
12 South Carolina
Record: 2-1
12
828
13 UCLA
Record: 3-0
13
798
14 Oklahoma
Record: 3-0
14
689
15 Miami (FL)
Record: 3-0
16
687
16 Washington
Record: 3-0
17
559
17 Northwestern
Record: 4-0
18
477
18 Michigan
Record: 4-0
15
450
19 Baylor
Record: 3-0
20
441
20 Florida
Record: 2-1
19
414
21 Mississippi
Record: 3-0
21
342
22 Notre Dame
22
256
23 Wisconsin
Record: 3-1
24
130
24 Texas Tech
Record: 4-0
25
127
25 Fresno State
Record: 3-0
27
110

 

Reader71

September 22nd, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^

If a good coach is a good coach, why use a term like "dinosaur"?

Also, why use anything bad to describe a coach who averaged 9 wins, ran a clean program, represented the program with class, and won the only National Championship that any of us can remember?

maizenbluenc

September 22nd, 2013 at 8:48 PM ^

after losing badly to USC in the second half of the Rose Bowl, loosing to App State and losing badly to Oregon ... not to mention his late years record against OSU.

Lloyd was a great coach. Bobby Bowden, and Joe Paterno all reached the dinosaur point as well. Mack Brown is there now. Happens. It was time for him to retire and let someone with more energy to creatively evolve the team.

MGlobules

September 22nd, 2013 at 6:01 PM ^

willingness to adapt, at least in the short run. You undermine your point about executing in any system, though, when you come back and denigrate the spread. Mostly I just see the jury as being (still) very much out, where lots of people seem ready to throw this or that coach under the bus this morning.  

Reader71

September 22nd, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^

I think you have a good point about the spread being a great equalizer, but I don't think you can say we are behind any curve. We have run the spread, to some degree, in every game this staff has coached. The last two years, we ran an exclusively spread offense. We set some records in 2011.

That being said, my greatest complaint about your post is the idea that Gardner would have been better in a spread. Is see nothing to support that. I also think the idea of short easy passes is great, but he looked like shit throwing hitches, slants, hitting sitting receivers in zones, etc. His long game was bad, his short game might have been worse. Gallon was open and Gardner threw it high, at which point Gallon tipped it up and it was picked. He missed a dig to Chesson short. He was off on at least two open slants to Gallon. We tried a shirt game, and he was bad. Wanna go shorter, with only bubbles, swings, screens, laterals? I don't think any offense could have helped his throwing yesterday.

ijohnb

September 22nd, 2013 at 5:25 PM ^

Really think Clark just meant that at Michigan, it is expected that the football team play better football than they are. I think he was just owning that they were not playing at a high enough level. For what it is worth, Michigan finds itself in the rather nice position of being undefeated and still being able to sneak up on people. Let people think we suck. And then watch the look on their face when we kick their ass. This team will be fine. Those were two stupid games against garbage competition. Michigan sleep walked and won both of them. There were no significant injuries, we won both games and now we get a bye week before the real season begins.

Cake Or Death

September 22nd, 2013 at 5:54 PM ^

you can take it a few different ways.  I think you're hearing "We're Michigan, and therefore we should win."

I am interpreting his comments a bit less arrogantly, as "We're Michigan, and the players, coaches, and program have a higher standard than our current performance."  There are other football programs that hope to have more winning seasons than not, and field a decent team most years.  I'm sure that that's even true of Michigan in some NCAA sports at the moment.  But football is not one of them.

I don't think is comment was about guarantees, or entitlement.  It was about expectations.

GoBlue

September 22nd, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^

Speaking of not having the basics down: *we're (x2)  *you're (x2)  (kudos for the last "your" being correct.  1/3 isn't so bad...)

I'm not one to make to wast much time on here with corrections, but if you're going to make assertions about what is and is not Michigan, doing so with those mistakes is more than a bit ironic.

---------------------

"Unrelated, but reading on ESPN that frank Clark said after the game that "were michigan, were going to stop playing down to our competition and get this fixed" while that's the right attitude, your not Michigan, your not playing like it at all, stop worrying about championships and start worrying about your play and blocking. We don't even have the basics down and talk about playing for titles."

GoBlue

September 22nd, 2013 at 4:12 PM ^

Two points for you.  You clearly identified that it is not ironic to criticize the football team while making grammatical errors.

Here's what is ironic: Making assertions about what is or is not "Michigan" while doing so with verbage that indicates a lack of comprehension of junior high English.  

It is fair to to say that if one wants to assert that "your not Michigan" then perhaps you're not Michigan.

---------------------

...Also Ironic: me typing my intial reply quickly and missing the "e" on waste

TheGhostofChappuis

September 22nd, 2013 at 4:54 PM ^

It's still not ironic.   In this context, the word "Michigan" is being used as an adjective to describe the quality of the football team and has nothing to do with the ability to write correct sentences.  One could have a lack of comprehension of junior high English and still be very qualified to assess whether or not this looks like a traditional "Michigan" football team.

Perkis-Size Me

September 22nd, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^

We're too high, in my opinion. We barely look like a top-50 team, much less a top-20 one.

This team, in particular Gardner and the interior offensive line, has two weeks to get its shit together. Minnesota is a big step above the teams we've been playing the past two weeks, and if we play even remotely against them like we did against Akron and UConn, we can kiss the Little Brown Jug good-bye. Hell, if we play anyone left on our schedule like we did the past two weeks, we are staring at a 4-8 season, an ass-kicking the likes of which we've never seen against OSU (don't think for one second that Meyer wouldn't love to hang 90 points on us if he could), and maybe another coaching search.

MGlobules

September 22nd, 2013 at 1:04 PM ^

for sure, pissing themselves midway through the first quarter when things don't go well. But how we got here would for most critical observers offer some clues about where we're going, no? Santayana and stuff. 

BlueHills

September 22nd, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^

I agree that we are overrated this week, and we are not playing like a ranked team. 

It's also clear that we don't have the horses to beat a team like Ohio State at this point in the season; frankly, the team will have to improve to beat Minnesota.

But Brandon is heavily invested in Hoke, and would not fire him even if the season went badly. And frankly, Hoke has a good staff.

It's easy to see that our quarterback has a confidence problem, and that the offensive line has a lot of growing to do. Whether the problems can be fixed remains to be seen. But I don't see how a QB's temporary head case and the O-line's inexperience is a coaching issue.

SouthTexasWolverine

September 22nd, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^

... that just played those last two games when we come up against Ohio. There will be 9 more weeks of practice and 7 more games played. These are the factors that a young team has to overcome to grow over the course of a season... there's only so much progress that can be made during Spring ball and summer conditioning. If you want to keep your blood pressure down just see team 134 for what it is... a work in progress, not a finished product ready to be rolled out to wreak havoc in the FBS.

Perkis-Size Me

September 22nd, 2013 at 1:57 PM ^

I never went into this season expecting a complete product and sheer, utter domination. Obviously the team was going to be a work in progress one way or another.



I'm not saying that a 4-8 season is going to happen and that Hoke is going to get fired. Frankly, I think overall he has a good staff, and Mattison's résumé speaks for itself. I'm just saying that, if the team keeps playing like its playing now, I'd have a hard time seeing us beat anyone, from Indiana on up to OSU. Which I don't think is an unreasonable statement. Of course, if this team plays up to its abilities, there's no team on its schedule that it can't beat. We've all seen what the team is capable of, so I don't want to give the impression that I think this team is hopeless. Far from.



It's a great time to have a bye week to get some things fixed and spend some more time in the film room, and I think the bye will do this team a lot of good, but it should be a little disconcerting that we've struggled mightily against two of the worst FBS teams in the country. Whether anyone on this board wants to admit that or not.

MGoClimb

September 22nd, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^

I'm fine with 18.  I agree with rob f that even that may be too high.  Hopefully with the bye our guys can get some good practice in and gear up for big ten play.  

It'll be nice to watch some football and not be so emotionally invested in the outcome for a weekend.

attimack311

September 22nd, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^

This is still the same team that beat ND by double digits. who is ND, don't know, they are one of 5tes with a loss to still be in the top 25. that has to count for something. we definitely haven't been impressive, but you have to understand in the last two games we have played teams where playing us is their super bowl. They came in prepared and we didn't, but we were able to win, period. Get to 7-0, no one will remember these two games...

SanFrancisco_W…

September 22nd, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^

Eh, still an unblemished record. A few games to watch in our bye week that could help us out. My guess is we're sitting right around 15-16 after next a weeks games. A win by ND against Oklahoma could prove to be a nice little boost.

In reply to by You Only Live Twice

Yeoman

September 22nd, 2013 at 6:25 PM ^

...if you think that's obviously too high or obviously too low.

They've returned the heart of an 11-2 Sugar Bowl winning team and they've beaten the crap out of everyone they've played--not great opposition, obviously, but about UConn level on average. As far as I can tell they might be one of the best two or three teams in the country or they might be 25-ish. And with their schedule we might never find out which it is. They've got a good chance of running the table either way.

charblue.

September 22nd, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^

it's difficult to guage whether anyone should take you seriously or not. Until Michigan plays a mistake-free game, you won't be able to see how good it might be. And that has never happened with this team with Gardner at quarterback. 

Like I said, until it plays mistake-free, every game on the schedule will be a challenge. And they don't deserve to be taken as a serious contender until they show they can correct their play and act like one. 

LSAClassOf2000

September 22nd, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^

Here's how the votes are distributed:

14th - 5 votes

15th - 2 votes

16th - 9 votes

17th - 11 votes

18th - 4 votes

19th - 8 votes

20th - 6 votes

21st - 6 votes

22nd - 4 votes

25th - 1 vote

Unranked - 4 votes

The mean ranking was 18.11, so very close to the actual. It represents a 3.48 position drop from last week's average vote.