Does anyone else see this season as a feast or famine season?

Submitted by uniqenam on

It seems to me like if we start strong and beat UCONN, we'll cruise through ND, UMASS, BG, and Indiana.  In that case, I don't think it's ridiculous to expect wins over Illinois, Purdue, and Michigan State, leaving us with at least 8 wins.

Howeva, it seems like if we come out sluggish and lose to UCONN, we could lose then at ND, and then the rest of a season is anybodies' guess.

I guess all this is to say that I could see us going 8-4/9-3, or I could see us going 5-7/4-8, but I don't see much in the middle.  Does anyone else get this feeling?

Blazefire

July 19th, 2010 at 8:33 AM ^

8-4 is a feast while 5-7 is a famine? Granted, yes, 8-4 is WAY preferable, but those records are nowhere close to either the best or worst possible.

I think 8-4 is probably about right (with a surprise loss to a program we should beat and a surprise win over OSU) but I would not consider that a feast. Likewise,  while I would be depressed to make no win progress whatsoever over last year, I would not call 5-7 a famine. Now 3-9, THAT'S a famine.

MGoDC

July 19th, 2010 at 8:43 AM ^

I agree about the feast. 10-2 with a Rose Bowl or at least the Capital One Bowl is a feast, not 8-4. But 5-7 is really a famine. 5-7 probably means the coach is canned and Brandon hires a guy who runs a more traditional offense since the spread doesnt work, probably from Palo Alto. 3-9 was horrible and living through all those losses in person at the Big House was terrible, but famine is a realtive term. When your school goes decades and decades of 6-6 or better headed to bowls, 5-7 is definitely a famine regardless of recent history.

Louie C

July 19th, 2010 at 9:17 AM ^

I don't think a losing record would come from "the spread not working" in the Big Ten. Penn State would beg to differ. So would the teams ( Florida, Texas, App State, Oregon, etc) that have posterized Big Ten teams. I think the only thing that would keep this team from a winning record is shitty luck because I think they are more than capable of putting together a winning record.

Maize and Blue…

July 19th, 2010 at 9:39 AM ^

You've got to have players to put together a good D.  Throw in three different D coordinators in three years and last year was a mess.  Have you ever seen a team win a SB yet alone two with a shitty defense? 

The two guys he specifically coached last year, Stevie and Death Row, had very good years.  Why were you skeptical of Gerg?  Could it be the fact that he has never been on the losing end of a SB or college bowl game as a D coordinator?

Don

July 19th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^

His defenses at Denver were great, but his defenses in KC and NE were not. He was DC at Texas for just one year, and he was co-DC; he did not have primary responsibility for assembling that Texas defense. His record at UCLA was very strong, but that was more than 20 years ago. I acknowledge that being a HC is different in many ways from being simply a DC, but his recent record at Syracuse was so outstandingly bad (if you want you can visit some SYR blogs for a recounting of his tenure; it's almost worse than the won-loss record) that I've wondered if he's simply past his prime as a coach. In short, his resume is not without its weak spots; it's not one of absolutely top-notch performances at every stop. Believe me, I hope I'm shown early on that my skepticism is stupid. I'll happily admit as much on these pages.

BigBlue02

July 19th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^

There were 5 walk-ons on our defensive 2 deep last year and he was taking over the worst defense in Michigan football history.  Any defensive coordinator would have struggled last year. Save your skepticisim for after years 2 or 3. Then is when he should have a little more to work with (if only in scholarship numbers alone!).

MaizeNBlue

July 19th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^

To be fair, some of those teams don't completely count as spread teams. PSU doesn't use a pure spread, just elements of it. Texas is the same way, although with Colt they were more spread based than any other time in the past decade. Florida/Oregon are deff spread though, and I'm sure everyone has seen the charts Brian put up awhile back detailing the national top 10 offenses (almost all of which are spread offenses).

MGoDC

July 19th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^

Replying to my own post since there is already a messy string of replies below (EDIT: above). To clarify the above comment (for Louie C and others lurking) it's not that I think "the spread doesnt work" but I do think if RR has a failed 3rd season and gets canned that the old guard and alumni will take that stance. I am very confident that our next coach will not be a spread coach if the Rich Rod era comes to an abrupt end for whatever reason following the 2010 year.

Also, among the spread teams you listed, Florida's spread got "posterized" by a pro-style Michigan team in January 2008 although I will concede that they embarassed OSU in 2007. Otherwise I agree.

MGoDC

July 19th, 2010 at 8:39 AM ^

Not sure I quite agree. While I agree a loss to UConn could potentially snowball into a loss at Notre Dame since who knows what kindve hurricane they'll cook up to beat us this year, I still think we'll rebound even with an 0-2 start (which, to clarify, I dont expect to happen).

Reasoning is: Umass and BG should be won regardless of our first two games, which already gets us to 2-2. Thats enough confidence to go to Indiana and win. If we're 3-2 on a 3-game winning streak, that should be enough to get the team on the right track again. I'm hoping this year that talent alone will carry us by Illinois, Purdue, and MSU. That said, 2 games at the beginning does make a huge difference in final record. 8-4 is a lot different than 6-6 even with the same in-conference record. So while I don't think that losing to UConn/ND will affect our games against Illinois/MSU/Purdue every game this year is important. We need to win those games.

maizenbluenc

July 19th, 2010 at 8:41 AM ^

I was thinking about this last week while listening to Lloyd Carr, and remembering how they overcame The Horror and Oregon. That took every ounce of leadership Lloyd and his staff had, and a total team effort.

We'll set aside Rich and staffs leadership abilities here. (I honestly just don't know. It does seem to me that he puts a lot of emphasis on Team.)  I'd like to think with 3 years in system, the current team is a collective enough unit to be able to pick themselves up off the mat. While, the team is still young, they have been through hell together.

While I would never hope for a 2007-like season. If we had one, I'd be impressed by the result.

maizenbluenc

July 19th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^

I agree - that team had a lot of senior leadership. However, I also think that Lloyd and staff showed a lot of leadership to keep that team together, and keep them focused on what they could still do, versus what had already transpired.

As I said, the current team is young, but has been through a lot together. (They also don't have a prior 2006 season to fall back on for a reason to believe.) If we did loose to U Conn and ND, then I would hope the collective bond would keep them going as a team. To go 7 and 5 or 8 and 4 (with 5 or 6 wins in the Big Ten) and then on to a bowl game, would be a great accomplishment in this case.

victors2000

July 19th, 2010 at 9:03 AM ^

so the growing pains probably still aren't over yet. The Big Ten has been quite competitive as of late, and the arrival of Nebraska next year isn't going to temper things. I don't think it will be 'feast' just yet, like a 10-2 season, that's a high expectation, but I can see us doing 8-4 if things work out well. Barring injuries, famine just better take his high horse and join his homies in the bible.

MGoShoe

July 19th, 2010 at 9:04 AM ^

...but the 1988 team lost in heartbreaking fashion to Notre Dame  and Miami (YTM) to open the season and then went undefeated the rest of the season to win the Big Ten and the Rose Bowl. 

I do admit that after the last two years an 0-2 start would cause a run on Ann Arbor Torch & Pitchfork stock and the distractions for RichRod and the staff would be immense.  UMass and BGSU would provide some respite and result in the IU game becoming the season's surprising linchpin.

Don

July 19th, 2010 at 9:17 AM ^

I think the Hoosiers are going to upset a big program in the B10 this year. I hope to God it's not us. They would have beaten Iowa last year if it weren't for the most incredibly unlikely bouncing, ricocheting football I've ever seen in college.

Magnus

July 19th, 2010 at 9:18 AM ^

I think we have a chance to win every game on the schedule, unlike the past two seasons.  Penn State is definitely winnable this year with their offensive and defensive losses.  I think Wisconsin's going to fall off because Bielema's a dick (yeah, I know that's not great reasoning, but whatever).  OSU will be our toughest game, but if the offense is clicking, you never know.

Yes, it could be a feast or famine year.  But I don't think an early loss or win will determine the rest of the year.

MGoDC

July 19th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^

I'm curious as well. Off the top of my head I think MSU, Purdue, and Illinois have coaches that are far bigger dicks. That means Bielema is at most the #4 biggest dick out of 10 choices without even thinking too hard.

Side note: damn the Big Ten has a lot of obnoxious head coaches.

Magnus

July 19th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^

I've seen him interviewed, and I just don't like his personality.

Also, a few years ago when the NCAA changed the rule that the game clock would start as soon as the ball was kicked off each time, Bielema instructed his coverage team late in the game to go offsides before the ball was kicked several times.  This wasted precious seconds late in the game when the opponent (I forget who it was, UCLA or Colorado or Northwestern or I don't know) could have been trying to score.

It was an obvious flouting of the rules, and Bielema is the reason that the rule was nixed after its brief trial.

oakapple

July 19th, 2010 at 9:18 AM ^

Regardless of what happens vs. UConn, it’s pretty rare that any opponent “cruises” over Notre Dame at South Bend. It has happened occasionally, but it’s certainly not an inevitable consequence of beating UConn. Of course, the opposite is also true: remember, Michigan started 0–2 in 2007 (as did the Irish), then went into South Bend and won 38–0.

As others have noted, Michigan figures to be the favorite vs. UMass and Bowling Green, and at Indiana, regardless of how the first two games turn out. Certainly, those are games the Wolverines cannot afford to lose if they want to reach bowl eligibility.

That brings us to Michigan State, which figures to be one of the crucial games of the season, assuming Michigan is at least 3–2 by that point. The game is in Ann Arbor, and the Wolverines should not lack for motivation, given the Spartans’ victories the last two years. Assuming the Spartans are a mid-level team, as they usually are, this is a game Michigan has to have.

The “easiest” remaining games on the schedule figure to be Illinois and at Purdue. But before they get that far, the Wolverines have to play Iowa and at Penn State. Those games could give them a lot of confidence, or take it away. Against the Illini and the Boilermakers, Michigan would probably be favored on paper if the games were played today, but those are the ninth and tenth games of the season. By then, factors such as injuries, momentum, weather, and other intangibles, could very well figure in the outcome.

BlockM

July 19th, 2010 at 9:19 AM ^

I'm in a similar boat, I guess. There's just way too much uncertainty this year (and the last two years) for me to be even remotely comfortable. I'm going to be nervous to the point of being sick before just about every game until the team proves they can move the ball with consistency and make some stops. I can see anywhere from 4 to 9 wins, but there's no way I'd make any end of season predictions at least until after the UConn game.

NomadicBlue

July 19th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^

Youth and inexperience yields uncertainty.  Good or bad, I expect this season to be an incredibly dramatic year for Michigan football with some glorious highs and crushing lows.  I think we will all share this nervous anticipation with you.  God, I'm looking forward to it. 

ijohnb

July 19th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^

in South Bend?  Please see 2008, 2004, 2002, and 1998.  With an occassional exception, M does very little cruising of any kind in South Bend.  A victory over ND in South Bend this year = massive party at my place and an updated win total for my team prediction this year from 8 to 9.

Firstbase

July 19th, 2010 at 9:30 AM ^

...I'm still a bit skeptical about RR's offense, one thing to remember is that last year we weren't running the entire set of plays. That should make things more problematic for opposing defenses.

I hope this includes more pro-set formations with Hopkins included in the backfield. I miss the big, bruising Michigan backs punishing the opposing safeties and corners (and linebackers, for that matter).

Beavis

July 19th, 2010 at 9:37 AM ^

Last I saw we were 7 point dogs to ND on the road. 

So I would not use the word "cruise" when it relates to that game this year.

(Yes, we beat them last year.  But it was close and at home.  Yes, they don't have Clausen and Tate anymore, but we don't have BG and DW.  Yes, we crushed them at ND in 2006 when we were ~7 point dogs, but that stuff doesn't happen every 4 years).

WichitanWolverine

July 19th, 2010 at 9:53 AM ^

I agree with most of the points people are making here but just wanted to add that this is why I think adding UConn to the schedule was a mistake.  When RR is fighting to keep his job, he should keep the non-con games at a creampuff status (aside from ND).  When he gets a little more job security, then open it up to scheduling real opponents.

BlockM

July 19th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^

I agree in the sense that I think the entire fanbase will implode if we lose to UConn. At the same time, I think Brandon is level-headed enough to determine whether RR has the team on the right track. That's what comforts me the most in this whole situation. I don't think I'd want RR back if we win 3 games this season, but if we win 6 or 7 it will depend greatly on how games are won and lost. If we lose 6 games that are huge blowouts, that's different than if we lose 6 games by less than a touchdown after a couple of our best players are knocked out with injuries or something.

I guess what it comes down to is my gigantic man-crush on David Brandon. I think he'll do the right thing.

MGoDC

July 19th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^

There are a number of flaws in this logic I think. Feel free to disagree but if I recall:

1. Opponents are scheduled several years in advance. When UConn was added the AD didnt think that Rich Rod would be on the hot seat (no AD thinks that their personal hire is going to be in serious job risk in year 3).

2. The AD thought it would be a good idea to open with a BCS-level opponent for the first game at the "new" stadium. I tend to agree with that decision because it wouldn't be as exciting to open the new stadium with a game against a low-tier MAC school. Plus on the off-chance we lose to UConn it would be sad but not a national embarassment like losing to a creampuff would be. How much sadder would "The Horror" have been if it occured in the first game of our newly renovated stadium? Well, maybe not much sadder considering how devastating it already was, but it would certainly take out any "wind in our sails" about what a great new stadium we had.

3. When UConn was added to the schedule I don't think the AD anticipated they would be this good. They were sort've a mid-tier Big East team until very recently when they've been climbing.

WichitanWolverine

July 19th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^

I do agree that right now UConn is probably a better team than the AD expected when they scheduled them.  I was going to mention this but forgot to.  Good point. 

However, when you say schedules are created years in advance, I must disagree here.  For example, we just recently finalized our 2011 schedule (about a month ago IIRC) when we added San Diego State and our non-conference 2012 schedule is currently wide open.  If my memory serves me, then RR was enduring the tragic 2008 season when he agreed to take on UConn, which again seems like a mistake to me.

AMazinBlue

July 19th, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^

Although UConn will be talented, especially at the QB position, I think their defense will be suspect.  Having the last three months before the season for the coaching staff to come up with a winning gameplan, UConn isn't the biggest hurdle of the 1st half of the season. 

A 7-5 season guarantees nothing without beating MSU.  Another home loss to Sparty and RR will be in big trouble.  The big 3 of ND, MSU and OSU is the biggest concern.  This team must win two of the three and be close in the third.  That and no foolish losses and 8-4 is a minimum to call the season a success of any kind.

If UM wins the first two, then 6-0 is very possible.  If that happens, then 8-4 would be the minimum.  I hate to admit it, but 7-5 without wins over MSU and OSU probably spells doom for this staff.

blueblueblue

July 19th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^

Although UConn will be talented, especially at the QB position, I think their defense will be suspect.  Having the last three months before the season for the coaching staff to come up with a winning gameplan, UConn isn't the biggest hurdle of the 1st half of the season.

Many folks here are making statements as to why we should beat certain teams, when their exact argument could be made for why a team might beat us. We will have talent at QB, yet a very questionable defense. These arguments are, well, less than convincing. 

Six Zero

July 19th, 2010 at 10:14 AM ^

Roast beast is a feast I can't stand in the least.

In terms of the head football coach, yes, you are correct.  Rich is either our coach for the foreseeable future or he's canned. 

Rasmus

July 19th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^

I just don't see the first two games as critical for the entire season. I'd say a relaxed win over Indiana (i.e., without struggling) is far more important in terms of setting the tenor as the team heads into the Big Ten schedule. Struggling against them last year, despite the win, was not a good thing and had repercussions in the two subsequent tough losses.

I'd take 3-2 with a dominant, confidence-building performance against Indiana over last year's 4-0 with no convincing non-MAC wins. I'll be optimistic with 4-1 after dominating Indiana. Even if the team makes it to 5-0, I'll be worried if we don't shut Indiana down. For me, that game looks like the bellwether.