Four of seven CNNSI.com "experts" pick Michigan for a BCS Bowl
Four (of seven) of CNNSI.com's "experts" pick Michigan to end up in a BCS Bowl (either the Rose or the Sugar). Almost all of them have two Big Ten teams in the BCS, with Wisconsin and MSU being the non-Michigan teams who show up in the picks.
I'm not 4/7ths sure that Michigan will make it to the BCS, and I don't think it's a given that the Big Ten will have two teams (given that OSU is inelligible), but I suppose it's better to be on the list than off of it.
Three of the experts:
August 29th, 2012 at 3:14 PM ^
... think we're BCS bound, we're surely doomed.
August 29th, 2012 at 3:18 PM ^
August 29th, 2012 at 3:34 PM ^
They are right about Denard, but for more reasons than the one they cited. Denard Robinson is not going to get a Heisman running the WCO. Luckily, Denard doesn't care about individual accomplishments. If he does, he's intelligent enough to realize that the team comes first.
I would bet that if you asked Denard what his two most important goals were this year, they would be "Beat Ohio" and "Big Ten Championship."
The MSM have already decided that the hype machine will follow Matt Barkley, and that the trophy is his to lose. If Barkley is a major disappointment, and Montee Ball loses time due to concussions stemming from an early return from his 5-on-1 beatdown, Denard might regain favor, but he will have to play well against Alabama, against whom nobody plays well.
Also, as the article forgot to mention, he will have to pass like a guy who is 6-4, get great performances from his receivers, and run for enough yards to make up for not being in an offense where 300 yards passing is an average day.
I think his team goals are a lot more realistic at this point. I hope I'm wrong.
August 29th, 2012 at 3:49 PM ^
all denard has to do against alabama is be on the winning team at the end of the game. if that happens, then come november he'll get the credit for that victory no matter how we actually won it.
August 29th, 2012 at 4:13 PM ^
August 29th, 2012 at 4:25 PM ^
I agree. It's a long season, and Michigan has plenty of high-profile games this year in which Denard will have the stage. If he flops against OSU, that might knock him out, but between Alabama, the night game in South Bend, OSU, a possible BTCG, etc., he'll have plenty of chances to showcase himself and make up for one bad performance (if he has one).
August 29th, 2012 at 5:54 PM ^
It seems that for the Heisman you have to be "dynamic" or "electric" and account for a ton of touchdowns. RG3 had 47 TD's (37 passing, 10 running) Newton had 50 TD's (30 passing, 20 running) Tebow had 55 (32 passing, 23 rushing) and last year Denard had 36 TD's (20 passing with 15 int's, 16 rushing.) If D'rob can improve his passing and decision making just by a small increment and translate 5-7 of those picks into TD's then he'll be the clear leader on the best team with a finalist in the discussion.
August 29th, 2012 at 5:25 PM ^
Love how one of the analysts throws a bone to AIRBHG in "Bold Prediction":
Rubin: Iowa running back Damon Bullock makes it through the entire season without getting hurt, arrested or suspended. Forget bold -- that's downright batty.
August 29th, 2012 at 3:23 PM ^
That these people are referred to as college football "experts" is laughable, and I mean that in the nicest way. Michigan in the Sugar bowl again? BCS bowls rarely if ever select the same team (at large) two years in a row, it would take a nearly unprecedented set of circumstances for that to happen. Let alone that before last year Michigan hadn't played in that game since the early 80's.
Four out of seven of the "experts" have Wisconsin in a non-Rose BCS bowl. Seriously? So four out of these seven people think that a team other than Wisconsin will make the B1G championship game from the Leaders? It's the only way they make it in a non-Rose BCS bowl. Who is so threatening? PURDUE??? ILLINOIS??? DON"T SLEEP ON INDIANA, SAYS MALLORY RUBIN.
Most of these choices aren't just illogical they're near impossible.
August 29th, 2012 at 3:33 PM ^
I'm not sure I understand your point RE: Wisconsin. For argument sake, what if they run the table or lose 1 and lose to Michigan in the Big Ten Championship Game. They would likely then be an at-large selection for a BCS Bowl.
August 29th, 2012 at 3:41 PM ^
It's possible but not likely - the losing team in conference championship games from power conferences historically don't make BCS games. Just how it is. Look at Michigan State last year.
I think it's much more likely that instead of using your well thought out logic these people just decided "Durr, Wisconsin is second best team in B1G, I put dem here." Without thinking about logical scenarios that would get them there.
Take for example the one guy who actualy put both ALABAMA and MICHIGAN in the Sugar Bowl TOGETHER. Still reeling from that one.
August 29th, 2012 at 3:58 PM ^
Ha I 100% agree with your assessment of the pre-season "analysts" and you're probably right that they didn't really think about it. I also thought about the MSU scenario, but the problem there is they had three losses. I am thinking more of an Oregon/Stanford scenario from last year.
August 29th, 2012 at 6:01 PM ^
August 29th, 2012 at 4:16 PM ^
August 29th, 2012 at 4:26 PM ^
You're mocking these guys, but their analysis makes more sense than yours.
The reason that MSU didn't make the BCS was that their loss to Wisconsin in the BTCG game them two losses and put them in the 15-20 range in the BCS rankings. If Wisconsin runs the table and then loses in the BTCG this year, trust me, they'll make the BCS. (I'm not predicting that, but looking at their schedule, it's definitely possible.)
Also, that Sugar Bowl note is misleading (that Michigan hadn't been there since the 1980s). Prior to the BCS, the Big Ten had no tie-in to the Sugar Bowl. In fact, Michigan was the last Big Ten school to make it there before the BCS. The only reason that bowls shy away from bringing schools in for consecutive years is that they worry their fans won't travel to the same place in consecutive years. Michigan travels really well - and New Orleans is an attractive destination - so I'm sure the Sugar Bowl wouldn't rule out that possibiity without thought.
August 29th, 2012 at 4:33 PM ^
I respect that analysis but there's absolutely 0% chance that Alabama and Michigan play in the Sugar Bowl game this year. None.
You're positively right that the main consideration is how fans will travel - that's why organizers won't choose two teams that played earlier in the year, at a neutral site, in a city not far from their own. Just wouldn't happen. That game wouldn't have the same buzz it did earlier in the year. There will always be another appealing option such as a Stanford, Florida State, etc. that won't pose the same issues for the committee.
But I digress, the odds of Denard being lifted up by a UFO in the middle of the game on Saturday are better than Michigan and Alabama playing in the Sugar Bowl this year.
August 29th, 2012 at 6:44 PM ^
Obviously, a Michigan-Alabama Sugar Bowl is unlikely, but it's not ridiculous. Just for fun, I pulled up the BCS selection order and Cory McCartney's picks (the guy who has Michigan-Alabama), and they're reasonable, given how McCartney apparently thinks the season will play out.
He has USC-Florida State in the championship game, which means that the Rose Bowl (which loses USC) and Orange Bowl (which loses Florida State) would get first choices. So with his conference champions:
Rose: Wisconsin vs. ?
Orange: ? vs. ?
Fiesta: West Virginia vs. ?
Sugar: Alabama vs. ?
The Rose and Orange get the first two picks. The Rose takes Oregon (Big Ten - Pac 12) and the Orange takes Oklahoma (I don't know, maybe McCartney thinks they'll be a top 5 team). The rest of the selections happen in this order: Fiesta, Sugar, Orange. He has Michigan, Louisville, and LSU getting those spots. Everyone would avoid Louisville, so they end up in the Orange. If the Fiesta chooses LSU, you get Michigan-Alabama in the Sugar.
Again, you're mocking these guys, but they're being much smarter than you're giving them credit for.
August 29th, 2012 at 7:02 PM ^
While that may be true it certainly does reduce the odds of that game happening to zero. There are many, many UFO sightings in that part of the country.
August 29th, 2012 at 4:22 PM ^
Andy Staples sucks. I recently heard him on the Solid Verbal podcast and I thought he was really annoying.
August 29th, 2012 at 4:51 PM ^
I'm quite sick of hearing how Alabama doesn't rebuild, just reloads. It's getting tired. Anyone can be beaten, that's why we play the game. I, for one, hope they come into this game with too much confidence.
August 29th, 2012 at 4:59 PM ^
I think Michigan's chances of making a BCS bowl as an at-large are pretty slim this year. We'd have to have 2 or fewer losses, and with our schedule that's asking a lot. But I do think we have a good chance of winning the conference. If UM beats MSU at home, a road win at either Neb. or OSU, should be enough to win the Legends so long as we don't blow it against some mediocre team. We'd almost certainly face Wisconsin in the title game but this year's version of Wisconsin doesn't scare me like the last couple Wisconsin teams did.
August 29th, 2012 at 5:04 PM ^
we reversed positions with Sparty from last year and still went to a BCS despite having an extra loss from the B1G championship game.
August 29th, 2012 at 6:16 PM ^
August 29th, 2012 at 7:58 PM ^
It's sort of interesting that, if you treated this as an up-and-down vote on potential participants in BCS bowls, you get either LSU-USC or Alabama-USC in the title game, Michigan-Oregon in the Rose Bowl, Othklahoma-Wisconsin in Fiesta Bowl and FSU-Lousiville in the Orange Bowl. The Sugar Bowl featured the most diverse predictions, though two picked Alabama-Texas. Those are probably not totally ridiculous matchups for eaxhof these bowls looking at it right now, but of course, no one has played a down this season yet. Some of them are probably not likely in the end, but none of them are impossible.
That being said, I still think 9-3 is a realistic approximate outcome this year in the regular season, and if we indeed go to the BTCG (and basically face Wisconsin because, well...look at that division for a second, including ineligible teams) and win, then a BCS bowl is a possibility, but I won't be completely shocked if we don't make one this year.
Reading the entire article, I would agree perhaps with their choice of Frank Spaziani as being the coach on the hottest seat overall. I think the rapidly declining performance has fans sort of remembering the Tom O'Brien years about a decade ago when they sort of performed above expectations at Boston College (or indeed, they yearn for the "Team Of Destiny" in 1940).