Midseason Review of Losses: Opponents' Records

Submitted by Humen on

We're slightly more than halfway through the regular season and sitting at 3-4 with losses to:

#5 6-0 Notre Dame (best win: #14 Stanford)

#20 4-1 Utah (best win: #8 UCLA)

5-1 Minnesota (best win: Northwestern/Michigan)

5-1 Rutgers (best win: Michigan)

That works out to 20-3. Heading into the bye, we just beat a PSU team that was 4-1. One could make the case that we haven't lost to a bad team. One could defend Hoke on that ground, but I'm not going to make that case. 

Notre Dame has @FSU (#2), @Navy, @ASU (#17), Northwestern, Lousville, and @USC (#22). FSU will be favored by about 10 if Winston plays and about -3.5 if not. It's likely they finish 9-3 or better. 

Utah has @OSU (NTOSU), USC (#22), @ASU (#17), ORE (#9), @TREE (#23), UA (#16), and @CO. That's brutal. Your guess is as good as anyone's in this year's PAC12, but mine is that they lose to USC, ASU, ORE, TREE, and UA, finishing 6-6. 

Minnesota still has to face Purdue, @Illinois, Iowa, OSU, @Nebraska, and @Wisconsin. This is looking like a team that will win at least 8(!) games, possibly more. 

Rutgers still has to face @Nebraska, @OSU, Wisky, Indiana, @MSU, and @Maryland. It's likely they finish 6-6 or worse. 

Perhaps, just perhaps, the teams we've lost to will all prove to be decent teams.

MGoBoard
Football
football
Utah
Notre Dame
Rutgers
minnesota
Brady Hoke

flashOverride

October 14th, 2014 at 7:43 PM ^

<sigh>

The "We might as well keep Hoke, really" blocks just keep tumbling into place (not saying that's what you're trying to do, OP). I've given up fearing it for accepting it to downright trying to find logic for it. 

Joined: 08/04/2013

MGoPoints: 9070

flashOverride

October 14th, 2014 at 8:05 PM ^

I've been getting negged for extreme pessimism lately, but I can't help it. To be honest, I don't think wins and losses are even going to factor in much at this point. I don't see an inclination toward drastic action (like getting rid of Brandon) in this administration and I just fear Michigan might be shell-shocked by how the last two coaching searches have gone. Public humiliations of first and second choices saying, "No thanks," coupled with fear of the 2015 recruiting class resembling 2011's. Brandon won't be able to attract a top-tier candidate and probably doesn't want to fire Hoke anyway as it's tantamount to admitting his own failure. If Brandon doesn't go, they'll just say, "We're not going to get anyone decent, so better the devil we know."

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the upcoming regents meeting is about Brandon and people working the back channels have some positive interest from top candidates. I'll be thrilled to be wrong in that case.  

Joined: 08/04/2013

MGoPoints: 9070

Kaminski16

October 14th, 2014 at 9:13 PM ^

Brandon still hasn't tweeted (not since Sept. 30) and Bacon came out and predicted he won't make it until the end of the season -- I think the damage is done and it's only a matter of time at this point. It says a lot when students organize a rally with legitimate attendance and get 10k names on a petition to get him out of here. 

As for Hoke: I don't think the regents, president, and next AD can really justify keeping him at this point. It looks like the ceiling here is 6-6; in year four, that's not good. And if somehow he manages to win out with victories at Michigan State and Ohio State, then, Hell... I'd say he's earned another year -- not that that is happening. 

I understand your pessimism, especially since a win over the Nits has lightened the mood around Ann Arbor a bit heading into the bye week, but I'd have to imagine that their departures are done deals at this point. We just have to be patient. 

Joined: 09/07/2010

MGoPoints: 1527

alum96

October 14th, 2014 at 7:46 PM ^

We already did this excuse in 2012.  Hey we lost to 3 super duper teams Bama, Notre Dame, OSU... then Nebraska (without our QB for a half), and South Carolina.

Just replace Bama with Notre Dame, Notre Dame with Utah, OSU with Rutgers, Nebraska (1/2 of a game without a QB!) with Minnesota (3/4 of a game without a QB) and MSU/OSU for South Carolina.

Then wave a flag and say cool beans sir!  Then splash water on your face and realize Rutgers is not undefeated OSU 2012, Notre Dame is not buzz saw Alabama 2012, Utah is not 12-1 Notre Dame 2012, and Minnesota is not Nebraska 2012.  Minnesota f***** lost 30-7 to TCU.

At least we were young and stupid back then.  "When Hoke gets all his player in the system we are going to MANBAWL to national championship contention with Bama in 2015 and 2016! 2014 will be the year it all begins to come together for those 2 huge years!  Hoke is still being held back by Rich rod's players!"

Joined: 04/28/2012

MGoPoints: 82545

Rick Grimes

October 14th, 2014 at 7:46 PM ^

For now, all our losses are to "good" teams but by seasons end, I think Rutgers and Utah will be average teams and not good losses. If we don't end up making a bowl game, it won't be because of the schedule being too tough.

Joined: 03/29/2014

MGoPoints: 1066

UofMDieHardsBlog

October 14th, 2014 at 7:46 PM ^

We NEEDED some of those wins at rutgers and home against Minn, but Utah is the real deal! they won AT #8 ucla and are having a good year, hopefully michigan can turn it around and get some big wins! go blue!

Joined: 10/13/2014

MGoPoints: -39

goblue16

October 14th, 2014 at 7:46 PM ^

It's not just about losing its how we played. We looked god awful in most of those games. They weren't even close

Joined: 03/28/2010

MGoPoints: 17468

Blue Bunny Friday

October 14th, 2014 at 7:55 PM ^

We have looked bad in every game except App St. BUT! the Rutgers game could've (should've) gone our way and if Hoke started Gardner against Minne, I think the outcome is different. ND and Utah beatdowns combined with overall play and deception make cleaning house necessary in year 4.

Joined: 05/01/2009

MGoPoints: 690

Leonhall

October 14th, 2014 at 10:28 PM ^

false statement, those who say, "Well, if Hoke had started Gardner against Minnesota things would have been different..." He might be our best option at QB, but lets not forget that Gardner started against Utah, ND, and Miami and looked pretty damn bad, I mean really bad, particularly against ND and Utah. What makes anybody think the Minnesota game would have all of a sudden been Vince Young? I don't think we beat Minnesota with Gardner.

Joined: 06/14/2012

MGoPoints: 16430

sammylittle

October 14th, 2014 at 7:48 PM ^

If we had beaten all of these swell teams, their combined record would be 16-7 with most of their wins coming against cupcakes.

If we had won all of our games, we would be 6-0.

If we had a competent coach, we would have 11 men on the field at all times.

If the wheel hadn't been invented, away games would have to be much closer to home!

Joined: 09/29/2008

MGoPoints: 7825

wolpherine2000

October 14th, 2014 at 9:20 PM ^

There's a logical truism in here, of which I am frequently reminded by my fantasy football team: Teams prone to losing tend to do so to teams prone to winning.  Statistically, this is almost always reflected in their respective records.

Joined: 07/10/2009

MGoPoints: 8833

alum96

October 14th, 2014 at 7:50 PM ^

And combined record of the teams we beat? 6-11.  We can beat shit teams!

Record versus last 11 Big 5 opponents?  2-9!

Extensions for everyone!

Joined: 04/28/2012

MGoPoints: 82545

J.Madrox

October 14th, 2014 at 8:48 PM ^

Yes, but it is far more beneficial to the OP's point to pick and choose which rankings he wants to use to better prove his point. Sure Stanford is currently ranked 23rd and UCLA is unranked, but if he uses their rankings when they lost, it makes those wins look better. But then he can turn around and use the 5th and 20th ranking for ND and Utah and ignore their rankings when we lost to them because that makes our losses look better. Why be consistent when it would make his whole post a lot less meaningful?

Joined: 03/15/2013

MGoPoints: 1674

Bergs

October 14th, 2014 at 9:01 PM ^

Or it could be that the OP used each team's ESPN schedule. The ESPN schedules have the opponents listed with their respective rankings at time of play yet list the homepage team with their current ranking.

Joined: 09/09/2011

MGoPoints: 2867

J.Madrox

October 14th, 2014 at 9:13 PM ^

If you want to make a point about the strength of Michigan's opponents that is fine, but having Utah's best win over an 8th ranked UCLA is ridiculous. Utah may be a very good team, we can better view it at the end of the year but Utah, did not beat the 8th best team in the country. If you are going to put all the work into this post you could at least do a little second level research on their opponents.

Joined: 03/15/2013

MGoPoints: 1674

Humen

October 14th, 2014 at 10:12 PM ^

He's correct--I used ESPN's schedule, and I believe they were #8 at the time that Utah beat them. I could have used FEI or something like that, but that would have went against my intention here--try to find a way to present things in a positive light and fail miserably. 

Joined: 10/04/2010

MGoPoints: 11731

Leonhall

October 14th, 2014 at 8:04 PM ^

We are 4 years in, there is no more moral victories, or hey, we lost to a good team. I'm sick of those goddamn excuses. I wanna win games. When was the last time we beat a good team? Seriously? Who was it?


Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 06/14/2012

MGoPoints: 16430