An interesting forum post in 24/7 sports. A lot of posters think we could be in a BCS game in 3 years! What do you all think?
How long before Hoke has UM in BCS game??? - 24/7 sports forum
a message board post about a message board post. this can't be good for the time-space continuum
Just get this chopper out of here and we will all be fine.
GET TO THE CHOPPUH!
Back in college, my roommate and I came up with stupid names for all of our online accounts for bills, and chose "GET2DACHOPPAH" for our cable/internet. When we had problems with the account, it was a pain in the ass to explain how to spell it to the idiots that work the service line.
I once had a wireless network called "Bacon's Sizzling Wireless".
Right now, I am not capable of thinking rationally about such topics
fine by me.
Well I am still holding out for a miracle next season. In 2012 I think even with 2 losses we would make a BCS game because our schedule is absolutely brutal. 3 years seems like a decent bet and this ironically enough is thanks in some part to RR. Either way, the future is certainly looking bright.
Tomorrow. The NCAA will decide to make a new BCS bowl in mid-May, and as a result of our recruiting success, we will get an invitation.
Depends on how well the offense adjusts and how quickly the defense gets righted. If the recruiting momentum holds up and the offense and defense show progress then three years isn't entirely out of the question. My personal expectation is to threaten for BCS within three years but actually making one can definitely take more time.
He gets three full years, right? Isn't that the new rule?
I am still holding out for this season. With the coaches in place, I am hopeful for a mediocre D + a more balanced O = a succesful year this year.
First of all, he's walking into a position he's never had before, that being a full roster of quality players, albeit still fairly young and very thin at a few spots (DT).
West coast offense utilizes the same skill sets as the spread in terms of skill players, w/less emphasis on running qb, with more weight given to passing proficiency. However, he still has a one-two punch that should be pretty damn good.
He has was RR did not, in addition to the aforementioned,and that's a full roster. As stated, he'll have to increase the depth in a few key positions, but he'll have the bodies to work with.
The media and fans seem to have his full support. This is vital.
Although his overall record is sub .500, I don't think I'm going out on a limb in assuming it would be greater had he stayed at the schools he built into winners instead of being presented and accepting new, more prestiguous jobs almost immediately after turning those programs around.
IMO, he's inheriting a group that could win as many as 9 his first year. He may need a few breaks to reach that number but it isn't out of the question. Within the three year time period, he should have depth at almost all positions and the qbs should become much more proficient at throwing to receivers being more tightly covered. Three sounds good to me.
I hate these type of thread (not this one, the one on 24/7). There's no reason to speculate, it just leads to dissapointment, like it did with Rich Rod. This is what all the ND fans did when Kelly was hired, and I hated. I do not want to be associated with ND in any way, shape, or form.
How much more civil the posters on that board are than MSU boards.
I get along great with most of them (Until the Sparties come of course).
A lot of respect for Hoke on that board.
Hell, it could be a year (2012) if things go just right. At least it would if they weren't playing away games against ND, OSU, and Alabama along with only having six home games.
This year. I dont believe any Big ten team will dominate the conference. We will tie with MSU and Nebraska in our division, being ahead of MSU for beating them 52-3. Losing to Nebraska, but MSU beating Nebraska. We tie msu/nebraska for the division title for beating tUOS 42-2, we attempt a 110 yard FG to end the game but our Holder messes it up and jumps on the ball.
4 or 5, hopefully. I can't see us challenging for one in the next few years, so it'll depend on what happens around the conference.
I disagree. This season is too soon and the 2012 schedule is probably too tough, but in 2013, Michigan gets ND, Nebraska, and OSU at home and some of the disasterous depth issues should have resolved themselves. Combine that with a ton of uncertainty at OSU, Devin Gardner being a RS Junior or a Senior with the Morris kid backing him up or maybe even pushing for PT in Taylor Lewan's RS Senior year (please let him be awesome and stay) and they really could be primed for a title run...if the defense can get it together.
Also, I think Nebraska is a paper tiger and Penn State is going to continue to have succession issues. If Hoke can get things going, the ceiling is higher at Michigan than anytime in the past 10 years.
You're looking at this in an at-large perspective compared to just winning our division and then the BTCG. That's the nice thing about the new setup, fewer games have standing when looking for a Rose Bowl berth.
Really, it's harder. You can back into BCS game by winning a Big 10 title game in a subpar division, but when you look at the SEC, it seems like you can have a great run, say 10-2, and get shut out of a BCS bid by losing in the conference title game. One more game is one more chance to lose, and you don't get into the BCS with more than 2 losses in a typical season.
But that's my point. Right now, we're not about to run through the entire schedule and lose a BCS berth in the BTCG. We're on the outside looking in for 2011, this new setup helps us this season for the reasons you stated.
In a "normal" Michigan year you're right that it probably won't do us any favors, but right now we're not that top team looking at an undefeated season next year.
I hear you, it's always possible to back into the title game on the back of a high-variance year that goes in your favor. I look at it year to year, and it's a lot more likely you'll be able to get in if you're good than if you're hoping for luck to fall your way.
Would the defense be fixed by 2013? As of right now, it doesn't look like there will be any star upperclassmen on defense. And I'm still not sold on Hoke as a coach. Recruiting, he's easily proved how well he does there, but on-field coaching is an entirely different story.
Too soon to write off Ash, Robinson, Furman, Avery, Ryan, Black, Jones, or any other defensive player in our in coming class. The only statement I will agree with is on coaching but talent makes mediocre coaches look great. Just ask Phil Jackson.
The more I hear about Ball State's athletic department, the more I think Hoke may be a really good coach. Apparently Muncie, IN isn't a bastion of competent administration.
All we really need to do is beat MSU, Nebraska, NU, Iowa and Minnesota and then (likely) either OSU or Wisconsin. I'm not saying that isn't a tall order, but more manageable than pre-2011 when we would have to run through the entire conference. Especially considering that we could lose to Nebraska, and if they drop games to MSU and Iowa and we beat them we're likely the division champs anyway. Then you're looking at a one-off game to decide the Rose Bowl representative.
BCS or bust! When RR's first Michigan team took the field in 2008, I recall that we fielded one offensive linemen who had ever started a college game, lined up a 3rd string QB behind him who was throwing to one receiver who had previously started, or handing off to one of two previously starting RBs. This motley crew went on to give undefeated Utah its toughest game of the season, eventually winning 3 games and staying competitive in 4 others.
This year we return our 8 leading WR, our 5 leading RB, our top TE, 8 of our 2-deep 10 OL... and the nation's most dangerous QB in the driver's seat. All of this returning from a Top 5 offense.
Add in a defense that returns a monster DL, and which won't be attempting to start 4 true-frosh DBs, and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a Top 60 defense to complement a Top 10 offense and a 10 win season. That should be enough to be sniffing BCS Roses.
I will be justifiably peeved about anything less.
Assuming that happens, we would need to beat all the teams in our division (doable, but msu and nu will be tough) and win 2/3 of pu, Ill, and osu, plus the championship game. This would leave us with 8 conference wins, which would certainly put us in the BCS ballpark.
I don't know if this scenario is feasible in a coaching change year, but it sure is fun to think about.
If we win all of the games in our division the games against Illinois, PSU and OSU don't mean jack shit. Win the division games, then you're in a one-off game for the Rose Bowl.
Nebraska, Iowa, NU, Minnesota, MSU, BTCG. Period. That's what matters for a BCS berth.
I meant from the 'political' side of the equation, it will look better on our BCS resume if we also beat teams in the other division. Think NCAAs for basketball.
If we win all of the games in our division the games against Illinois, PSU and OSU don't mean jack shit.
Not true. Those games count in the division standings. We could sweep our division rivals and still finish second if we fare poorly in the cross-division games.
UFR it seems you're right. However, even the comments on ESPN were able to spell out reasons why this is dumb.
After learning this, I think they should change it. If the object is to win the division, you should be entitled a spot in the championship game with a sweep of the division. I can envision more than a few scenarios when MSU's protected rivalry with IU benefits them when M is punished for playing OSU every year.
Is there a major sports league anywhere that does this? The major American leagues and the college football conferences with divisions don't. Michigan and OSU wanted to protect the rivalry, they need to live with the result.
I guess I don't get the point of going to divisions if it's not what counts. The major leauges are a bit different, IMO, because there are a lot more games played.
Also, I agree they should both live with it, but it's also easy to see that it could become a liability in a year like 2010 when MSU got Wisconsin early and didn't play OSU.
The point of going to divisions is it sets up a conference championship game, and it sets six conference games in stone each year--five in the same division and one 'protected rivalry'. The conference and each individual school has flexibility in filling up the rest of its schedule from year to year.
Going to twelve teams created the possibility for a championship game. If the requirements for going to the BTCG have little to do with divisional standings, why not just have the same format as before and let the top two teams play it out?
Because frequently there will be one team running away with the championship, or multiple teams tied at the #1 or #2 spots and it becomes a political contest to determine who should play in the CG. Having two clear-cut divisions with set rules for cross-division protected and rotating games helps lend some stability to the process, and the system is similar to the SEC's, which while corrupted, is still the most compelling conference championship structure in college football.
You can't go to divisions without twelve teams. You need to be seperated in divisions to have a CG.
That's probably a little much. They may surprise because the schedule is weak this season, but unless OSU totally implodes, this team will have issues.
We should probably wait and see how good he is as an actual coach before we start speculating on how soon we can get to a BCS game
I expect us to return to a BCS bowl game at the conclusion of the upcoming season. I realize it's considered irrational, but that doesn't alter MY expectations. "Lowered expectations" was a recessive gene in my mom. Luckily my dad's dominant "Success" gene stomped that sucker dead.
Please give Hoke and the new staff time to build the team and for the guys to transition. If it doesn't happen year one, don't be disillusioned. It'll happen, but it's okay if it takes a little more time.
IMO, I don't think we'll be the Michigan we expect the first time we hit the field, but we will be that Michigan.