CFN - UM to finish 7-5 but ...
Looks like CFN has little faith in UM. 7-5 finish predicted. However, take it with a grain of salt as they also predict that Michigan State will lose to Penn St and that Penn St will lose to Michigan State. Nice job double checking your work boys.
http://michigan.scout.com/a.z?s=162&p=2&c=911820
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
Hence the "lolcfn" tag Brian has on this blog.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
go fuck yourself with a rusty railroad spike. Also, hire writers that can spell at minimum at a 9th grade level. Also, hire an editor.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 PM ^
would be fine if it were just the cat and the corn, but I must admit that the pair of boobs in the background only adds to it's appeal.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 PM ^
there's a cat in that picture?
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 PM ^
"at Notre Dame 33 … Michigan State 30"
WTF??????
All of these were better games:
ND at Michigan
Iowa at Penn St
Michigan at Iowa
OSU at Purdue
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
But no way was OSU/Purdue or Michigan at Iowa better than ND/MSU. UM/ND, however, was, and Iowa v. PSU was probably a push.
See what I did there? Said I have no way how to define best, then made bold conclusions. I'm basing my ranking on quality of the game, excitement of finish, relative back/forth flow of the competition, etc.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 PM ^
That's just wrong. And he's spilling it all over himself, too.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:59 PM ^
The CFN guys are idiots. How can Brandon Graham not be in the top 10 players category? Plus, I'd say him or Warren have been our MVPs, but I can understand why they'd pick Tate
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^
The same guy that left Brandon Graham off the list does the editing.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:22 PM ^
after all, BG's stats (while quite good) aren't other-worldly. You'd actually have to watch him play to see how much he affects the game. And how can we expect something called COLLEGE FOOTBALL NEWS to actually watch games?
I agree with them on Tate though; improved QB play has been the primary reason Michigan is so much better than last year. BG and Donovan Warren have been All-Conference caliber, but most of Michigan's wins have come from the offense.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^
Didn't they also have a certain QB from Ohio State as the #1 player in the big ten before the season started?????
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 PM ^
hey take it easy on CFN. maybe they're just predicting that MSU and PSU will both get lucrative offers to forfeit their conference game against each other to play FCS teams. bold prediction, though, i must say.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 PM ^
Meh. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that M will lose to PSU, Wisconsin, and OSU. We'll be underdogs in each of them, so I suppose it's the safe bet. I think we'll surprise at least one of them, but 7-5 doesn't feel like a huge slight right now.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:06 PM ^
going to win 2 of those 3.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:08 PM ^
from your lips to Angry Michigan Program Improvement Hating God's ears.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^
so it is done.
Seriously, my L5/S1 only acts up before Michigan goes on a tear. And I'm laying on the floor, writhing in agony not experienced since the ND game '07.
Prior to that, it was Labor Day '06. Coincidence? I think not.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 PM ^
A lot of smart people have predicted a 7-5 finish for Michigan. The Wolverines figure to be the favorites in just two of their remaining games (Purdue and Illinois). With no upsets, Michigan would finish at 7-5.
Obviously, most people here think those upsets are very possible, but 7-5 isn't a crazy prediction at all.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 PM ^
It's not just that we have a chance at an upset; it's that we are big favorites in the two wins but only small underdogs for the other three... likely a touchdown or less for each one. Even if we have a 1/3 shot at each game, which is pessimistic, we'd have an 8/27 chance of losing them all. Jump that to 40%, which I think is about correct for being on the wrong side of a 7 point spread, and we'd lose them all 27/125 of the time. So, we'd have about an 80% chance to go 8-4 or better.
This is obviously oversolving things, but you get the picture.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 PM ^
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, sir.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^
and substitute my own.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:52 PM ^
"Delaware St. managed just two second half field goals"
The score was 49-3 at the half.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:45 PM ^
CFN and many other football "gurus" are predicting UM to go "chalk" for the rest of the season. That certainly takes a lot of courage and imagination.