Bizzaro Michigan = Texas A&M who will succeed first?
The obvious point has been made multiple times that we have a less-experienced offense, (compared to the rest of the nation) that is in the process of learning a new system, with the wrong personnel, and that for these reasons we are struggling.
I am behind our program and its coaches and have been impressed with several facets of their short tenure, and somewhat disappointed in others.
However, even in patiently waiting for our expected ascent to the top of the college football ranks to occur, I have been searching for a "yardstick" to measure reasonable progress by.
I propose looking at Texas A&M: New head coach (with a new offensive scheme), new DC, sophomore QB who played very sparingly last year (replacing a returning senior who is "ill-fitted" to the new system), only 2 part-time starters back on O-line, WRs all less than 19 catches last year; the only advantage is experienced RBs (which you could argue we had if not for injury)
This year they are 4-7 (2-5 conf) with their remaining game against their hated rival Texas, who should trounce them. Wins are against 2 weak out-of-conf and 2 lesser conf foes.
Recruiting-wize they are not as a "power" like UM, but doing decently.
Is it fair to say that if we fall behind their progress in the next year or two that we should have serious questions?
November 17th, 2008 at 5:47 PM ^
Interesting comparison and one that I've personally given a lot of thought to. I'm a Michigan alum and a current grad student at A&M with season tickets down here. It hasn't been a great season for college football.
Superficially, the comparisons are good, although somewhat opposite. A&M's offense has been its strength this season, although they have underachieved frequently (like Michigan's defense). A&M's defense has been awful, particularly at LB. The only good news is that several true freshman have emerged to give some hope (Hunter, Fredrick, Jerod-Eddie, etc.).
The greatest similarity is on the offensive line. Both units have taken big steps back this season without much in the way of returning contributors. Both schools took big o-line classes last year and hopefully each team can count on 2 or 3 of those guys contributing next year.
Even with that, I think that the talent level at Michigan is significantly higher. A&M has a definite advantage at QB with Jerrod Johnson who I think is going to be really, really good. I would say that Goodson and Gray are maybe a touch better than Minor and Brown but Michigan has more depth with Shaw and McGuffie vs. Bradley Stephens and Keondra Smith. Jeff Fuller is a great wide receiver and Ryan Tannehill is having an amazing year, but I would rather have Matthews, Odoms, Hemingway and Stonum (assuming everybody is healthy) because behind the big two, things get thin in A&M's receiving corps. Jamie McCoy is basically Carson Butler with a little better focus and no predisposition to beating up nerds.
On defense, Michigan has a significant advantage, particularly in the secondary. Warren, Cissoko, Brown, Williams and Smith would all start down here next year and it wouldn't be close. A&M also lacks a player of the caliber of Mouton, Ezeh, or presumably Fitzgerald. In my mind, the d-lines are pretty close.
The big thing to keep in mind is that Mike Sherman was an okay pro coach with nothing beyond positional coaching experience in major college football. Rodriguez has a proven track record of success. I'm encouraged by what Sherman is doing and the players that he has recruited for the future, but given the talent that is on campus in Ann Arbor and has committed to future classes, I will be very disappointed if Michigan is unable to stay ahead of A&M.
Just my rambling two cents worth.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:07 PM ^
Not really related to the post, but culturally, I think of UT-Austin as bizarro UM, with Oklahoma obviously being bizarro OSU:
- Austin and Ann Arbor are similar in a lot of respects; both are "weird" hippie towns historically.
- UT Austin students/fans and UM Ann Arbor students/fans are both looked at as arrogant/overachieving/hoity-toity/etc by their rivals, while OU and OSU fans are looked at as being crude/hillbilly/redneck/etc.
- Both UT/OU and UM/OSU are/were historically the two dominant teams in their respective conferences, for the most part.
- While the traditional "big" rivalry for UT is OU, UT also has an in-state rivalry with A&M. A&M fans naturally think UT thinks they are their biggest rival, while UT fans sort of think of A&M as we think of MSU as "little brother."
- Stoops and Tressel both have a knack for choking in huge games.
I'm sure there are more comparisons.