Now if we look at the sites old predictions, we can see that we are a little over confident

Well then I predict we go 12-0 so we can actually go 8-4.

You should be aware of the risks inherent in the UM football futures market. Past performance does not guarantee or imply future success. You can't assume that wins or losses will be realized or that any recommendations made in any part of the 'blog will be profitable. The purchase of the futures contracts discussed in the 'blog may result in the loss of some or all of any investment made.

When you consider the inexperience and lack of depth on defense, the huge questions in the kicking game, and a wide slew of unknowns on offense, I don't know how any observer of UM football over the past two years can say that 7-5 is "unlikely." It might be "uninspiring" or "unpleasant" but not "unlikely."

The more I think about it the more I think we will go 7-5 with losses to OSU, Wisky, Iowa, PSU, and one of ND/MSU. I think 6-6 is possible too unfortunately (so is 8-4 though). @Indiana and Purdue won't be gimme's. I think next year is when we will finally turn the corner. I'd like to think I take my homerism out of it because I said 6-6 last year, missing the Purdue game.

and in 1997 Michigan was preseason #14...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_rankings

Preseason rankings/predictions are terrible in hindsight becuase they're based on little fact and too much expert opinion.  There's just too much we don't know about the teamespecially as of late, hense the predictions in '08 and '09 being off.

I'm predicting 17-0 and 2 National titles (13-0 Division 1, 4-0 in FCS Championship tournament).  We're coming for you app state, don't think you could avoid the revenge tour...

EDIT: Just for completeness sake I went back and looked at 2005 and 2006 as well.  2005 was predicted as 10-1 (we know that wasn't right...) and 2006 was predicted as 10-2 (final record of 11-2, dead on without the bowl win).

I remember before '06, when everyone was thinking we'd go 8-4 or 9-3 at best.

I think predictions for us this year are far more "educated" than they were for the last two.It's hard to know what to expect from freshman and first time starters...Especially when running the offense.

Well let's see! 6 wins first year, 7 the second and 8 in the third. That's 21 wins over a three years span. We already have 8 so that means we will be 13-0 this year. I like that.

In a serious note, I actually think 8-4 or 9-3 is more realistic.

I'm not predicting anything, but anything less than 8 wins will be a disappointment for me.

Lloyd would have won 8 games in his sleep with this schedule and been criticized the whole time

I understand, OP, that prediction was 6-6 and 7-5 in 08 and 09; however, I think you have to understand that it is impossible for me to even remotely consider Michigan under 500 in any prediction in any circumstances. I suspect this may be true for others socialized in a world where Michigan always came out of the OOC schedule 3 and 1 at worst for all of their formative years. I am hardwired to write down 9-3 at a *minimum* because of this...whether or not it makes rational sense.

What i think, is that we killed our own chances in about 4 games last season. It was interceptions from poor line play, and a true Frosh QB. It was missed routes, and blown plays. I do not see that happening this year, we will have improved line play. The QB's are a year wiser. The receivers routes looked a lot better in this years spring game, then last year. I know i may be being bold here, but i agree when people predict an 8-4 season. I believe we can achieve it, if we play clean and do not turn the ball over a lot. I can not speak for everyone, but i am really really excited for this season.

In all fairness, I think that the record of a RR-coached team in general is very hard to predict.  We're talking about a coach who has regularly had very poor starts at his last two previous head coaching stops, followed by an incredible turnaround.  And let's be honest -- how many games can we point to over the last two years that we potentially could have won if it weren't for one or two backbreaking plays (MSU last year / Illinois last year / Purdue two years ago / even PSU two years ago / etc)?  This is a team that is on the cusp of success, and has been for two seasons.

IMO, we're all still drinking kool-aid. Maybe it is watered down a bit from the pure crystaline form we ingested the last two years, but still ...

There is still too much youth, and risk. Beyond depth, youth, and not quite the right talent issues in 2007 and 2008 (I'm being nice, not naive), we were unlucky going into the second half of the conference schedule. Adding to the risk: we supposedly have one of the toughest non-conference schedules, and I'd bet we're up there with our conference schedule as well. With a few injuries in the wrong places, we could be facing another "dead man walking" end to the season.

Now, if we get lucky in the injury department, and if Gibbons and Hagerup get 'er done in the kicking department, and if our stable of running backs delivers one or two breakout guys who can manage a full season without debillitating injuries, and finally if our young defense actually pulls it together and our opponents don't figure out the simplified scheme, then maybe we do put up 8 or 9, or maybe even with a bowl 10 wins. (Iowa, PSU, MSU, ND, Purdue all candidate wins in there.)

I know I'm excited, and I will be rooting like hell for this team to win, but they really need to show me they can put it together, and hold it together down the conference stretch.