ESPN has a list of "Title or Bust" teams for 2012, but they're dumb. In their rendition of Team 133, Taylor Lewan, Michael Schofield, and Fitz are all seniors.
Seriously, who hires these writers?
I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
ESPN's "Title or Bust" Teams [Michigan is one of them] ($)
April 10th, 2012 at 4:37 PM
#1
ESPN's "Title or Bust" Teams [Michigan is one of them] ($)
April 10th, 2012 at 4:44 PM
#2
They are seniors
To be fair, they are academic seniors with junior eligibility.
April 10th, 2012 at 4:47 PM
#3
Although that's the truth, no
Although that's the truth, no athlete is every referred that way in a sports context.
April 10th, 2012 at 7:20 PM
#4
To be fair
Just to give them credit, or whatever, Notre Dame is pretty consistent at always referring to their athletes by their academic class designation I believe.
April 10th, 2012 at 7:34 PM
#5
Is that true? If so, it's
Is that true? If so, it's nothing but confusing for the reader. Because, there's a huge difference between Denard and Fitz or Lewan right now, and if I'm a fan (who doesn't follow as closely as I do) it makes a big difference to me whether or not a star player has eligibility left.
April 11th, 2012 at 10:20 AM
#6
I followed Notre Dame pretty
I followed Notre Dame pretty closely my whole life and I'm not sure they really do that. In their programs, they'll usually list both a player's eligibility and their school year, but fans never refer to a player by their academic year.
April 10th, 2012 at 4:51 PM
#7
Seriously
"....as the rival Buckeyes enter Year 2 of the Urban Meyer era." Very poor writing.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:05 PM
#8
That sentence was not poor writing.
"The B1G is ripe for the taking -- which may not be as true next season, as the rival Buckeyes enter Year 2 of the Urban Meyer era."
The author is stating that in 2012, the B1G is ripe for the taking. In 2013, the B1G may not be ripe for the taking, as it will be Year 2 of the Urban Meyer era.
A correct and reasonable statement.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:22 PM
#9
That statement is not
That statement is not reasonable...an Urban Meyer era? Fuck that. Lets see what Hoke has in store, as well as a soon to be resurgent PSU under BOB
April 10th, 2012 at 5:39 PM
#10
The writer means the Urban
The writer means the Urban Meyer era at OSU - as in OSU will be more of a contender in Urban's second year there. That statement is both correct and reasonable.
The writer didn't say OSU would dominate, or the Big Ten would belong to Urban Meyer, just that it would be less wide open once Urban got everything rolling. I don't see a problem with that.
April 11th, 2012 at 1:18 AM
#11
Urban will get burned out again!
After losing to Michigan in 2012 and 2013 the OSU fans will put so much pressure on Urban he will probably have to retire! Hoke will rule!
April 10th, 2012 at 4:53 PM
#12
Our best chance for a title,
Our best chance for a title, and "for quite a while" is this year? On a year where we we have Bama, OSU, ND, and Neb on the road? And in year 2 of a program rebuild/shift? I think they just wanted extra clicks
April 10th, 2012 at 5:33 PM
#13
They're right
I mean, think about it. If we win every game we play we have a pretty darn good shot at a title :)
April 10th, 2012 at 6:04 PM
#14
No need to rebuild, shift should be over
We went 11-2 in year 1 and won our first BCS bowl in over a decade. Walking in the door and winning right away isn't what "rebuilding" means.
Next year we return an all-American, record setting QB, a 1,000+ yard RB, an all-conference LT, a record setting WR, and 15 of the 18 guys who played on D in the Sugar Bowl. We have a long list of blue-chip recruits who have sat behind solid starters waiting in the wings and a top notch recruiting class coming in as well. From a team that would have easily gone undefeated in the regular season last year if the offense had played just slightly better against MSU and Iowa (and the first 3 quarters against ND as well). While I agree that the "for quite a while" is presumptuous and IMO mistaken, you don't get better opportunities than this very often.
The shift already hit us this past year. Denard's completion percentage dropped and his INT rate soared. There were a number of flat out busts on defense early in the year as well from guys not knowing how to run and/or make the proper checks in the defense that was called. Those things happen when you implement totally new terminology, etc. If anything we should see a big leap this year as those growing pains are put behind us (much like we saw in Denard's sophomore season).
Also, three of those teams aren't very good and don't exhibit a lot of hope for getting remarkably better in the near future. And the fourth one almost certainly won't be as good as they were last year (doubt Bama goes back to back or even comes close to another title). I'd obviously rather see us play them in Ann Arbor, but acting like we are running through some gauntlet because we have to play ND and Nebraska is an overreaction based on the history of their helmets rather than their respective rosters.
April 10th, 2012 at 6:50 PM
#15
If our team had played
If our team had played slightly worse, we would have lost to ND, OSU, and VT. This is really the wrong team for playing the "what if" game, given that our loss to MSU wasn't exactly a close loss and Iowa would have required a lot of favorable events for us to win. (As a general rule, if you are hoping for a game-tying series of events followed by "having the momentum" in overtime, you weren't that close to winning.) I don't believe that a spot in the national title game is anywhere near likely, and I'd rather enjoy the season instead of having to freak out if something doesn't go our way. Being a tentative favorite for the Big Ten title ought to be good enough, and that's still doable with one or two losses as long as we can do well in our division.
I reserve the right to irrationally become optimistic when the season starts, however.
April 10th, 2012 at 7:05 PM
#16
You are making an assumption
I'm not talking about a play here or there turning those games around. I'm talking about what the team is actually capable of on the offensive side of the ball and what the baseline is. If you assume our steady state for offensive production with this year or last year's personnel is 14 against MSU, 16 against Iowa, and 7 through three quarters against ND (two of those games without any real contribution from Fitz), then I think you are mistaken. With a year of experience in the offense for the players and a year of tape for Borges to study and tinker with, I don't think those kinds of numbers are in the realm of possibilities any more.
In the same vein, USC's offense put up some awful performances early last season on offense (19 against Minnesota, 17 against Utah, 22 against ASU) when they were breaking in new linemen, a freshman WR, and looking for a RB. I don't think those performances are at all indicative of what we'll see from their offense next year with so much returning production.
April 10th, 2012 at 8:28 PM
#17
Solid
But, if you were going to take the opposite view, what would you say could trip Michigan up?
April 10th, 2012 at 10:38 PM
#18
With the..
exception of the MSU game and the Iowa game Denard's completion percentage for the last 8 games wasn't bad, averaging just under 62% per game (take out those 2 games and his completions are just shy of 69%) . His int's were up, 9 picks in the last 8 games, but 3 of those were the MSU game, his only multi pic game over that stretch. I really believe what we witnessed early last year was Denard's adjustment to Borges' offensive scheme that really took it's toll over the first 4 games. After the SDSU game he seemed to get on track. I really believe Denard is going to get out of the gate strong this year as his second under Borges.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:01 PM
#19
to be fair
the Buckeyes enter year 2 quote came after saying this is the year to make a run in the B1G because next year will be year 2 in the Urban Meyer era...
April 10th, 2012 at 5:02 PM
#20
Terrible
"Barry Alzarez has the Purdue Spartans offensive line in shape to score many runs this fall."
April 10th, 2012 at 5:03 PM
#21
Absolutely retarded that
this article was behind a paywall.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:05 PM
#22
It is awesome that after
It is awesome that after reading this title I thought, "Football or Basketball?"
April 10th, 2012 at 5:26 PM
#23
Dude
No joke!
April 10th, 2012 at 5:10 PM
#24
Our schedule this year is not
Our schedule this year is not made for a title run. We start off the year with Alabama and play OSU, Nebraska, and ND away. That's 4 potential losses already. I'll be satisfied with a 9 win season.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:16 PM
#25
So because you can name four
So because you can name four potential losses that means you're satisfied with nine wins? I could have names four potential losses last year, but we didn't lose 'em. Last year we could have played Nebraska in Lincoln, going uphill on offense and we would have won. Nebraska does not worry me all that much.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:20 PM
#26
9 wins off of a Sugar Bowl
9 wins off of a Sugar Bowl season where you return a good amount of players would be a disappointment.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:27 PM
#27
To be fair, I don't think our
To be fair, I don't think our team last year, talent wise, was an 11 win team. THey took advantage of incredibly fortuitous breaks. When we play Alabama or OSU on the road, we prob won't get many of them. I think 10 wins is a successful season with this schedule.
April 11th, 2012 at 1:34 AM
#28
It is possible
We could lose to AL and ND and possibly 1 or 2 conference games. This team will improve through the season much like last season. I think we'll finally get sparty at home. @NE may be tough but I think it will be a win. I think we will beat OSU in the horseshoe. I'm worried we'll probably lose against some one in the conference we should beat. As long as we win the legends division and the B1G title game, then I will consider that to be a great season. I'll be slightly disappointed in a 4 loss season but it is possible. However, Hoke has Michigan on the right track and in the long run I see Michigan being a solid top 10 team in the years to come.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:23 PM
#29
The only game that you mentioned, that
I'm worried about is Alabama. People need to stop judgind SoS by name alone.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:41 PM
#30
beggin
Beg to differ... that IS a title run. In that, if we win out, there is no chance we get denied a spot in the BS title. (Oopsie did I do a typo there.). Its an impressive gauntlet but a surmountable one.
April 10th, 2012 at 6:51 PM
#31
The expectation is to compete
The expectation is to compete for and win the Big 10 championship every year.
April 11th, 2012 at 8:34 AM
#32
With all due respect...
That is a Title Run schedule. If there were more than 2 BCS teams undefeated or with all the same losses (inlcuding UofM), that brutal schedule will favor UofM. Switch those teams and add cupcakes, the "weak" scheduling can hurt us in the long run.
EDIT: Saw another poster beat me. Oops
April 10th, 2012 at 5:11 PM
#33
I wish I was paid to write
I wish I was paid to write sports articles
April 10th, 2012 at 5:26 PM
#34
QB Good denard's passing
my take:
QB Good denard's passing needs to be much more accurate this year.
RB Good
WR Good Depth may be an issue
TE Good
OL Good plenty of depth will newcomers Magnuson and Kalis
DL TBD We may be in for a bad year, but we have heard positive talk out of spring about Jibreel and BWC.
LB Good
DBs Good
April 10th, 2012 at 6:19 PM
#35
TE Good? That's it? 1st
TE Good? That's it? 1st year starter who will either be a senior who has done nothing, a position change guy who has done nothing, or a true freshman who has, obiously, done nothing. I wouldn't necessarily say "TE Good".
April 10th, 2012 at 6:30 PM
#36
The reason they've done nothing
There was this guy named Kevin Koger on the team the last few years who was a pretty good player. We also threw the ball sparingly last year. Our TE accounted for about 2 catches a game and 20 yards, despite all the talk about plans to make it a more featured position in the offense.
To tread water (and when you put up 33+ points a game you can afford to tread water) we don't really need a lot of production out of those guys and even if they don't play even that small role in the passing game there are plenty of other spots that could presumably pick up that slack adequately.
April 11th, 2012 at 12:10 AM
#37
WR
I would have to say WR looks like a weakness at this point. Hopefully Roundtree will turn it around this year or we'll see a guy like Jerald Robinson emerge, but until it happens I don't think we can just pencil-in "good" for the position group.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:25 PM
#38
Ohio, Nebraska, and ND should
Ohio, Nebraska, and ND should have more of a down year. Bama will be legit, but not on par with last year.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:29 PM
#39
I'm guessing this is the
I'm guessing this is the first time you have ever read an ESPN article about Michigan that closely.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:31 PM
#40
Meyer blows
He is a great coach that gets to recruits with Sandusky type persuasion. I feel he will keep the admin assistants coming in. That will be tough to quit for him I bet. He will again feel the heat and retire for his "family time", which he will spend on the road with espn again.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:46 PM
#41
ESPN Insider
If there was ever a reason NOT to pay for insider, this article is it.
April 10th, 2012 at 5:56 PM
#42
keep an eye out for the
keep an eye out for the specials people post on here. i got Insider and Magazine for like $15, and for 3 years (or maybe it was 4)
April 10th, 2012 at 5:51 PM
#43
Are they talking about
Are they talking about football or basketball? After the news of Trey's return I think you could make the arguement for either one right now.
April 10th, 2012 at 6:19 PM
#44
Was it just me, or were other
Was it just me, or were other people surprised by how much he talked about contending for a national championship in his informal announcement that he would return? He mentioned it like four times as a reason he decided to come back to Michigan. Even if true, I've never really heard that kind of talk from a Michigan progam (except hockey). Usually it's all about "We want to win the Big Ten and see what happens after that."
April 10th, 2012 at 6:34 PM
#45
I don't think basketball is
I don't think basketball is so desperate for warm bodies that they'd bring in Lewan to play some hoops. Regardless, it's certainly looking like we could have 2 top 5 teams this fall.
April 10th, 2012 at 6:53 PM
#46
A 6'8 302 PF that doesn't
A 6'8 302 PF that doesn't take up a scholarship? Sounds like a good deal to me.
April 10th, 2012 at 6:55 PM
#47
I said it was good because
I said it was good because Moore has been really impressive. As long as we have one solid TE, we'll be fine.
April 10th, 2012 at 7:00 PM
#48
We had a lot of close wins
We had a lot of close wins and loses last year. We were only down 21-14 and on the MSU 20 yard line in the 4th quarter in EL on the notorious 4th and 1 pass play.
April 10th, 2012 at 7:07 PM
#49
Then wouldn't it be
to the writer's great surprise a year from now when they are still playing? This is the beauty of a writer with incorrect information in their piece: It's wrong in perpetuity.
April 10th, 2012 at 7:19 PM
#50
ESPN is the WORST when it comes to college football
Information wise, talent evaluation wise, and a lot of the time the writing at ESPN is terrible. If you ever look at ESPN rankings they're completely different than scout/rivals/247. I think ESPN is SEC biased. Recruits from the south and teams from the south have their recruits and classes consistentely ranked higher on ESPN. ESPN also has information on the atheletes 40's, bench, height, and weight wrong much of the time. Obviously, ESPN is a great marketing and television station. But if you're talking recruiting and articles on specific teams I prefer rivals, scout, and 247 over ESPN everytime. When it comes to the writing scout, rivals, 247 always have much more informative articles.
April 10th, 2012 at 8:56 PM
#51
Writer Experience
It says that he's been at this job since April 2012, so...
