Big Ten post-spring power rankings
per ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/21941/big-ten-post-spring-power-rankings-2
#7 and behind NW?
Wha??
EDIT:
Disclaimer: The Rittenberg poll is meaningless. I realize this, you realize this, and we all know it to be true. But, you know, it's Monday so let's talk about it. k bye
Shoot, I wouldn't care if we're ranked 16th!
I will say I agree with Iowa and Ohio State. I think Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Penn State just might be overrated. I really think Northwestern is too. Ah, what do I know.
I agree on those teams, except for Wisconsin. Clay is going to be a beast this year. I think the loss of Clark and Kafka are going to hurt PSU and NW more than most people think. MSU is MSU. They have the pieces to win 10 games with their schedule, but they'll probably only go 8-4.
We have 3 wins over the last two seasons. We still have a lot of question marks. If we come out and demolish UConn, you can bet that we will jump up to 4th or 5th. If we struggle against them then we'll stay where we are at until we prove we can win games.
I agree, It's hard to make a case for Michigan to be any better than 7th. I think ESPN just needs to put something out to fill the void that is the offseason.
Not only that, but:
- We kind of got blown out in four of our last five Big Ten games.
- Our offensive, while improved, still had the worst average yards-per-play of all Big Ten teams in league play (source: http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/stats/2009-2010/confonly.html_
- We lost our three best defensive players on a bad defense (worst in the Big Ten in average yards-per-play).
- We lost a great punter.
So in short, we had the worst offense and defense in the Big Ten last year.
I hope we have a great season, but perhaps we should keep expectations in line with how bad last year actually was. The best-case scenario is that Molk comes back healthy, our running back group improves after an injury-laden 2009 campaign, and our defense takes a huge leap forward after last year's debacle.
¡Si, se puede!
The stat about lowest yards per play is interesting (and thanks for citing) but that does not mean that we had the worst offense in the Big Ten. Yards per play is neat to look at, but it's not that important.
First of all, there are 3 other teams within 2 tenths of a yard of us. That is virtually negligible in terms of yards per play.
Secondly, and much more importantly, because it doesn't take into account number of plays, it's much less meaningful. For example, NW averaged 4.8 yards per play, one tenth more than us, making them the second worst offense in the Big Ten, by your metric. HOWEVA, they averaged 377 yards per game, good enough for 3rd in the league. This is because they ran more offensive plays than anyone in the Big Ten (FYI, only 3 teams ran more plays than M).
The number of plays a team runs on offense is just as important as the average per play. Sure, a team's defense can help to raise the number of plays an offense runs, which skews that stat to make it look like the offense is better, but we all know that wasn't the case with Michigan last year. M wasn't a big play team (at least in the Big Ten games) so there weren't a lot of long plays bringing up our avg, but we were not the worst offense in the league.
The number of plays a team runs on offense is just as important as the average per play.
I don't think I agree. Yards per game is much more a function of how many possessions you have (e.g., how often your defense gets you the ball, how quickly you run each play, how often you have incomplete passes, etc.) Yards per play is a better measure of how good your offense is each play. (Although, granted, good offenses will move the chains and create more plays for themselves.)
Also consider that our offense had 23 turnovers (worst in league) and was also by far the worst offense in the red zone (18-30, 12 TD's). We probably were the worst offense in the league.
I decided to turn my original comment into another post on the board, so we can discuss it there too.
The reason I think the total number of plays is just as important is because the total number of yards is the most telling stat.
For example, if your team goes 80 yards in 12 plays for a TD, that's 6.7 yards per play. However, if your team gets to the 30 in 3 plays, then gets 6 yards on the next 3 plays and kicks a FG, you averaged 9.3 yards per play, but came up with fewer yards (and fewer points, but that's not part of the argument).
Also, the playbook can affect YPP as well, if you're a team with a lot of homerun threats. We weren't last year, but we were able to convert a number of 3rd and 6's. This doesn't help our YPP a lot, but it keeps the chains moving.
My point is that there have been a lot of offenses that have a low YPP average but have very good offenses. Saying that our's was the worst simply because we had the lowest YPP is inaccurate. Like I said above, if that was the case, NW would have been second worse, even though they were 3rd in yards per game.
I agree. Look at Sparty. They led the Conference in average yards per play last year, but only finished 4th in total yardage and went 4-4 on the conference.
1) Obviously those aren't good stats, but throwing out the non-Baby Seal U OOC games means that there's going to be more variance from what the team's actual true talent was. So it's not the case that those games are more representative of the team overall.
2) Iowa, PSU and Ohio State were all top ten defenses in the country.
In 2007 we were ranked 5th in the country preseason and we all know how that turned out. Preseason power rankings don't mean anything.
Win games and the rankings will improve.
UM tied for last place last year. A 3.5 spot jump without playing is probably about all we could ask for.
Yeah, this really doesn't both me. If we win our 4 OOC games and finish in the Big Ten as this ranking suggests, we go 7-5, which, meh, but still an improvement. We all want more than that, but it's not like anyone here really thought we would be in the top 3 or 4 when this list came out. And who really cares about where NW is? We don't even play them.
That said, the only one I really disagree with is MSU. Why do people always think they'll be good at the beginning of the season? It never happens. I'll be very surprised if MSU is really the 4th best team in the Big Ten this fall.
However, is this ranking where they will finish in the standings, or a ranking of the best teams? The fact that MSU doesn't play the best team in the league (OSU) certainly helps them. Which makes me think, if MSU doesn't put it together this year while M is still coming up, PSU is down (which won't last long) and OSU if off the schedule, 2011 might be pretty rough for them.
7. Michigan: A pivotal season for the Maize and Blue could come down to Denard Robinson and an improved offensive line. If Robinson builds off a strong spring, wins the starting quarterback job and gets some room to roam, Michigan should score plenty of points this fall. There's still a lot of work to do on defense and especially in the kicking game.
The team's success on offense is not predicated on DRob emerging as the starter. OTOH, he does score for his recognition of the importance of improved OL play. All indications are that we will see that occur and that sets up the basis for the skill positions to do their thing.
Here's the thing: every single pre-season prediction will have Michigan in the middle of the pack or below. My advice: hold onto your frustration, nuture it, refine it, then unleash it on Sep 4 at The Big House as we show UCONN what happens when a sleeping giant awakes.
I have to say I don't get it and that's not a slight against you but instead an admition of my ignorance.
I kind of feel like the awkward guy in the room that is laughing bacause I think it's funny... then I finally stop and have that dazed look on my face, obviously showing that I missed something.
I really don't see how anyone can be frustrated by Rittenberg "ranking" Michigan as a mythical seventh best team in the Big Ten, four months before the season even starts.
There are six thousand variables which render his opinion useless and to get upset about it is jejune.
I will say this - had Rittenberg ranked Michigan 11th at this point, who could complain? And on what basis?
Don't get frustrated about what one dude on the Internet says - his ultimate bearing on the games is about the same as Kim Jong Il's. Enjoy the summer and worry about things you can actually do something about. The only way for anything to change regarding the perception of Michigan football (which, if Rittenberg is to be believed, is still a tad bit overrated in relation to recent performance) is to, wait for it, WIN.
Making conversation about a mythical ranking? Yes.
Just thought UM might lockdown an all-important Rittenberg preseason top 5 spot a la ND. It's a Monday and work is ... slow.
I agree - I don't think that Robinson taking over at QB is necessarily a good thing for this team, but UM's success this year will be predicated on the offensive line keeping the QB clean and opening up holes for the running game. The defense is a work-in-progress, but if this team can score 30+ points a game, I'll take my chances. At this point, whether Forcier or Robinson lines up behind center is not that important to me.
With their quarterback situation, I wouldn't be very confident with where they're ranked.
PSU will have a great Defense. As we all know, Defense > Offense. PSU will be just fine.
Penn State will likely have a good defense, but I don't know if it will be great. They lost some very good defenders, most notably Navarro and Lee. I bet their defense is good, but with how bad their O might be, I don't think it will be good enough for them to contend for a B10 title.
I think you're on point here. Penn State always has the good front 7 and will again this year.
But, they are going to have QB issues like Michigan did in 2009 - execution? playbook? experience?
They also have a very difficult schedule, At Alabama? Yikes. Penn State is re-loading, but it will be difficult for it to have another 10 win season in 2010.
Not saying you did, but he will be harder to replace than Lee(IME). I mean c'mon, their Liiiiiiinebacker U!
Good call.
#7 IS UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!
</sarcasm>
#7 in the Rittenberg fairytale jibbery-joo poll is ok.
#7 in the 2010 post-season Big Ten rankings is, yeah, what you said, unacceptable in all caps with a bunch of exclamation points.
Did you call Rittenberg a Jibbery Joo?
I would never bestow such slander on Mr. Rittenberg. Feel free to replace poll description with gobblety-goo or pixie mcsprinkles. Yeah, I'm fine with being 7th in the "Rittenberg Pixie McSprinkles Preseason Poll" because you and I know, when the old season is over, it's gon' be Michigan again, Michigan.
Kevin Newsome should be fighting Al-Quadia because he could overthrow anything.
+1 for zing.
mgodemerit for a woefully misspelled Al-Qaeda.
Northwestern has 7 more Big 10 wins than us the last two seasons with a nice core coming back.
Why wouldnt they be ranked ahead of us in a May power poll.
What would be the basis of putting them behind us, I wonder?
When will it be enough? I thought we all agreed that if RichRod didn't win 7 games this year and do better than 6th in Rittenberg's preseason power rankings that he'd be gone!
prefaces the rankings by saying the middle (after OSU, Iowa, and Wisco) is "a bit muddled." There's some fluidity in his own mind about 4-7.
Of these four, they all have question marks. But every season has its surprises and as such, I wouldn't be shocked if one of NU, MSU, or Michigan finishes in top 3 in the league (less confident in PSU because I think teams are going to just load up on Royster and force them to throw). Neither would I be shocked if Wisco or Iowa falter.
OSU may not go undefeated in league play but they'll be in the hunt for a B10 championship in the end, I suspect.
I will take great comfort in the fact that these predictions are almost always spectacularly wrong.
UConn is number three in the Big East and "faster than you think." I think this season will be the most exciting one in a long time. All of this is speculation. UConn should tell us a lot.
I hope the MSM continues to underrate UM and overrate MSU. It will make what I think is going to happen this year even sweeter.
A Tater post isn't a Tater post if his irrational paranoia about Michigan State doesn't seep into the writing.
But until they start to win games, no one will give us the benefit of the doubt, and they shouldn't. Denard Robinson is a huge key, but I don't think he has to be a starter in order for us to become a great football team again. It's also hard to judge a team that has, well, a bunch of true freshmen coming, and will play major roles, but aren't even on campus yet... They see who we lost, how bad we've been, and rank us 7th. I can live with that.
But it's not how you start, it's how you finish.
Would you expect for them to rank us high anyway? We need to start winning games to start earning respect back from ESPN.
Think Michigan's ceiling is much higher with Denard Robinson at QB than with Tate at QB.
It sounds like Rittenberg thinks Michigan only has a chance to be really good if Robinson takes that next step.
Personally, I think the offense could still be great with Tate at qb. Drew Brees is arguably one of the best passers this conference has ever seen, and he was a 6'0" qb who wasn't much of a threat to run the ball.
how many times did Joe Tiller ask Drew Brees to run the ball? In the 4 years Brees was at Purdue the number of times Tiller called a play that was designed for Brees to run the ball is probably less then the number of times Forcier carried the ball last year.
The Brees/Forcier comparison is interesting except that Brees played in an offense where he wasn't expected to run. Forcier plays in an offense that based upon last year is going to expect him to run and be effective doing so.
Believe it or not, Brees put up comparable rushing numbers to Forcier as a sophomore and junior, and significantly higher numbers (521 rush yards) as a senior.
http://www.purduesports.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/brees_drew00.html