Bill Connelly releases projected 2016 S&P+ rankings

Submitted by MichiganStephen on

Bill Connelly of S&P+ rankings fame has released his 2016 projections. Michigan comes in at 6, OSU at 14 and MSU at 22. The next B1G team is Nebraska at 26.

The biggest surprise to me is Washington at 10, although many in the media expect them to have a great year as Chris Petersen enters his third season.

What are your thoughts?

FreddieMercuryHayes

February 8th, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^

I'll buy Washington; will be a telling year, but I think they'll deliver a very good one. I'll buy UM as well. Experience plus Harbaugh equals good. Not sure what to think about Neb. I just can't get a read on how good/bad they'll be under Riley at this point. I'm leaning to 'worse than under Pelini.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Cali Wolverine

February 8th, 2016 at 10:44 AM ^

a nice freshman QB and are well coached...I saw them completely shutdown USC's offense at the Coliseum this year.

College Football can not get here soon enough (although Coach Harbaugh sure makes Spring and Summer more interesting for us).

ScruffyTheJanitor

February 8th, 2016 at 10:47 AM ^

Seems as though recruiting and recent results are the main things holding us back. I think Gary alone will make up a large portion of the recruiting impact,  and a second year of Harbaugh should make up for four years of Hoke. 

Avon Barksdale

February 8th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^

Something that will really help us is we actually have a pretty stout schedule next year. @MSU, @OSU, @Iowa, vs Wisconsin, vs Penn State, vs Pac12 Colorado out of conference. We should be able to lose a game and still be in contention for the top 4 just as MSU was this season. I really, really want a Big Ten Championship next season.

In a perfect world, O'Korn is a big time playmaker that simply refuses to let us lose a game ala Cam Newton and we run the table.

alum96

February 8th, 2016 at 11:59 AM ^

OSU had 1 loss last year and didnt go to the playoffs.

Its going to be difficult to say that go forward with MSU OSU and UM annually beating each other up.

If say OSU runs the table in B10 and loses to Oklahoma they will have 1 loss.  UM runs the table in non conf and only loses to OSU in conf.  OSU will go to the playoffs.  So 1 loss isnt going to be as foolproof as it will be in say the Big 10 west.

ijohnb

February 8th, 2016 at 11:01 AM ^

if it is not a very popular take, but the NFL just spent an entire two weeks attempting to dispel any notion of Cam Newton being a me-first show off kind of guy, then he comes out in gold shoes for warm ups, fumbles twice, jumps away from a fumble at a crucial point in the game, kind of throws his team under the bus in the presser and then storms off before it is over after acting petulant the entire time.  Yeah, kind of safe to say that couldn't have gone much worse if the NFL was looking for a new poster boy.

FauxMo

February 8th, 2016 at 11:12 AM ^

Maybe the NFL should have been smarter than to hitch their wagon to a young man virtually every non-Auburn fan agrees took a boatload of cash from a college in contradiction to the rules to play there? Maybe the NFL doesn't see this as a "crime," but it certainly speaks to his core values.  

 

I could care less if Cam showboats on the field after scoring; too much is made of all that nonsense. But it's clear now that Cam is a front-runner - he is joyous and personable and flashy when winning, and whiney and a poor sport when losing.

DetroitBlue

February 8th, 2016 at 11:23 AM ^

Don't get me wrong, Cam seems like an asshole, but (and I realize this isn't going to be a popular opinion) I don't see a college kid taking money as indicative of moral corruption.
Was it smart for the NFL to apparently go all-in on a whiney, show-boating, front-running prick? Of course not, but this is the NFL we're talking about, and as the last few years have shown, they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

In reply to by ijohnb

FauxMo

February 8th, 2016 at 12:15 PM ^

You know exactly what he's saying - to criticize Cam Newton's behavior is to (potentially) "out" yourself as a racist with double standards. For some of his critics, I am sure this is true. For me, I prefer people (especially those making hundreds of millions of dollars for playing a game) to be respectful in both victory and defeat. I apply this rule to players regardless of race, or any other unrelated indicator. I have no love for Aaron Rodgers. I am no fan of Peyton Manning either. I think Tom Brady is been mostly exemplary as a player and as a person during his career. I also think Calvin Johnson has been the same. I thought Suh was a total scumbag, both when he was a Lion and now. In short, it's not always about race...

ijohnb

February 8th, 2016 at 1:15 PM ^

I really didn't understand what he was saying.  He said those same words could be applied to Aaron Rodgers.  OK, yeah, they probably could, but Aaron Rodgers wasn't playing in the Super Bowl last night so what they hell does it matter?  I am tired of people making "race-talk" out of something that has nothing to do with race. 

In reply to by ijohnb

FauxMo

February 8th, 2016 at 2:45 PM ^

Sorry, I truly thought you and he both were being coy. The online memes of Cam celebrating and being called a "thug" vs. Brady, Rodgers, Luck, Manning, etc., celebrating and being called "competitors" has been making the rounds. I agree, it's not always race that informs these criticisms. Cam's temper-tantrum last night kind of proved that, to me. His refusal to talk for more than 2 minutes last night showed that he is certainly a little young and immature, and handles winning way better than losing...

In reply to by ijohnb

MichiganMan14

February 8th, 2016 at 7:35 PM ^

Everything. Cam and Aaron are the same guy....just different color skin. One is a "thug" despite his charity work and big heart.....the other is just a "bad ass". Kind of like white hockey players being lauded as tough for fighting and black football players being labeled thugs for on field altercations. The double standard is ever so real and it pisses many people including myself the hell off. Especially when people try to act like it's not there.

ijohnb

February 9th, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^

using "racial attitudes" as the root of an issue where the issue exists entirely independent of race has become so ingrained in our culture that people cannot comprehend that a person of any race may conduct themselves in such a fashion as to be rightly subjected to criticism irrespective of which race they are.  This would be one of those cases.

Ali G Bomaye

February 8th, 2016 at 2:43 PM ^

Newton had a shitty game, but his offensive line was dominated by the Broncos' pass rush, his receivers are terrible, and he apparently hurt his shoulder some time in the second half.  It seems a stretch to connect those struggles to wearing gold shoes during warmups, and there really isn't any evidence that he's a me-first player. 

mackbru

February 8th, 2016 at 11:27 AM ^

It's been discussed ad nauseum that next year's schedule is actually softer than usual. We have the two rival game as usual -- on the road, admittedly - but we'll be favored in every other game. Plus no other major non-conference game. Colorado is not major.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

ijohnb

February 8th, 2016 at 11:32 AM ^

soft non-conference sure, but we get Wisconsin back which is never easy, we go on the road to Kinnick where we have been a disaster lately, and we are on the road at State and OSU.  I don't know about "soft."

WestQuad

February 8th, 2016 at 11:45 AM ^

Alum96 did a diary on the schedule being soft right after OSU.   MSU and OSU lose a lot, so it is a good year to be on the road, but I'm sure they will both re-load by the time they play us.  Iowa also won't have the year they had this year.

Fact is, teams can change a lot from year to year (even week to week) in college football.  We won't know for sure if we have a tough schedule until a few weeks into the season. S&P or not.

alum96

February 8th, 2016 at 12:04 PM ^

I wouldnt call it soft but I sure wouldnt call it extremely difficult or anything like that.

If you believe playing MSU and OSU make a schedule difficult UM will never play a non difficult schedule.

Wisconsin is not a powerhouse team or anything and its at UM.  Iowa is solid but not a powerhouse.  After that the schedule falls off dramatically.  OSU loses all but 6 starters.  MSU lost its star QB, star DE, star OT, star WR.  I mean these are the best scenarios to play those teams on the road you could ask for.

If UM cant beat Wisconsin and PSU at home they dont deserve to even be in the top 15 IMO.  Your season is basically 3 games ala MSU last year - @IOwa, @MSU, @OSU.  MSU beat their 3 similar opponents last year Oregon, @UM, @OSU.  At some point you have to go out and do it or you are a pretender.

If OSU stumbles vs someone other than Oklahoma (which I'd project as a loss with such a young OSU team) and has 2 losses entering the UM game there is a good chance UM wont face a top 10 opponent all year.  Even if they are top 10 playing one top 10 team all season does not make a tough schedule.

Brandywine

February 8th, 2016 at 10:18 PM ^

All good points, but on the @MSU / @OSU front I'd say that no matter the returning starters, road games at two of the most successful programs of that last half decade are still huge challenges. Mainly because, well, Michigan hasn't shown in many years it is capable despite roster turnover.



Of course, we feel good about the direction Michigan is headed so hypothetically this should be its best chance in a while.








Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

olm_go_blue

February 9th, 2016 at 1:48 AM ^

Even though Iowa impressed me vs MSU this year, I think they take a step back next year - even returning Beathard (who I'm pretty sure is 50 years old) and King. Good thing is, their toughest games are at home (Wisky, Nebraksa, and NU), so UM could easily have a top 10 win on the road. Good for positioning.

jmblue

February 8th, 2016 at 11:45 AM ^

We have the two rival game as usual -- on the road, admittedly - but we'll be favored in every other game

We'll be favored in most of our games, but that says more about our team than our schedule.  Top ten teams are usually the favorite when they play.

I don't think it's particularly easy.  Probably six or seven of our nine conference games will be against bowl-bound teams, including three road games (OSU, MSU, Iowa).

alum96

February 8th, 2016 at 12:06 PM ^

Bowl bound teams doesnt mean jack.  If you go by that almost every P5 team has a tough schedule.  There are 5-7 teams going to bowls now.  Brady Hoke's 5-7 UM would have probably been invited to a bowl if they had expanded the criteria a year earlier.   UM teams that got ripped to shreds by the likes of Miss State went to bowls - it doesnt mean anything.

mackbru

February 8th, 2016 at 1:50 PM ^

Correct. By playing a B10 schedule, you'll always be playing a bunch of bowl-bound teams. But most of those teams will end up being okay/solid but not great. The difference this year is we don't have the kind of daunting out of conference game we usually have. No ND, Bama, Utah. This schedule sets us up w a good chance to start 7-0 going into MSU, which likely won't be as good as it was last season. Then we've got likely wins versus MD and Indiana. Iowa and Wisky are always challenging. And OSU is OSU.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad