So improving in close games =/= improvement? That's news to me. I mean its not like we even played well in some of those close games.
I think you will get your wish.
So improving in close games =/= improvement? That's news to me. I mean its not like we even played well in some of those close games.
Because "Michigan will only get exponentially better while all other teams will stagnate or get worse" would give us any lossed or "toss up " games.
You sir are not delusional at all, thank god you are here to set the rest of us straight.
while all other teams will stagnate or get worse.
Your point would be valid but for the fact that Notre Dame has stagnated or gotten worse in every season since 2006.
EDIT - Whoops, Notre Dame did improve from 3 to 6 wins in 2008. Still terrible though.
And how have we done since 2006?
You may not be happy with the results (I'm certainly not), but the team HAS improved in every year of the RR era. Clearly not as much as anyone would have liked, but you cannot deny the existence of improvement, record-wise.
And Notre Dame has a new coach, who has been a proven success at his old school, who can be expected to improve the team in his second year, once players have bought into his system, etc. Sound familiar? Amazing how Michigan is bound to improve over time with Rodriguez at the helm, but Notre Dame under Brian Kelly doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.
Add to that the fact that Notre Dame, in Kelly's first season and with a backup quarterback, just got a win over a ranked team. How many times has Michigan accomplished that in the last three years?
Right, their ranked win came over Utah.
Yeah, that Utah who made their way to the No. 5 spot by ...
Beating No. 15 Pitt 27-24 in OT. Pitt is now 6-4 with losses to Notre Dame and UConn.
UNLV (they're 2-9 now)
New Mexico (they're 1-10)
San Jose State (they're 1-10)
Iowa State (5-7)
Colorado State (3-9)
Yes, Utah achieved their #5 ranking by beating only 1 team that currently has a winning record. Utah's victories (up until their #5 ranking) came over teams that are a combined 21-58.
Yes, Utah beat teams who's win percent is an astounding .256 to get their ranking.
Then they got absolutely demolished by TCU and blown out by ND. Hmm... Can someone say overrated?
Kind of comparable to Wiscy 08, no?
I think that game is going to be a dog fight. They have lost close games to BYU, TCU and Utah, and they are only getting better under Brady Hoke. They have their Junior QB coming back who has been sick this season (he had 500+ yards last week against Utah). I am nervious about that game. I would rather play any team in the Big East. SDSU is on the rise. I think it is going to be a shoot out, and if we have a few turnovers, we could easily lose.
Hoke will know how to beat his old team
If you're worried about Brady Hoke, there's a good chance he will be coaching in the Big House.....in either September or October.
He's one of the top candidates for the Gopher job and would be a great hire for that team.
and yes he would be a good hire for the Gophers. I like him as a coach
hasn't looked half bad of late. I'm not sure who they've got back, but I'd be inclined to pencil, not ink, in that win.
ND doesn't lose much so I think "tossup" is appropriate if the only options are win, lose, and tossup, but I think we'll have the edge at home.
I think we will also have a slight edge over MSU and Iowa. MSU loses 6 starters on offense and 5 (including Jones) on defense. Iowa is likely to decline even more than MSU. The offense loses 5 starters including Stanzi. The defense loses 6, including 5 of the front 7.
NW might not be so easy. They have 9 starters back on offense and 7 on defense.
Purdue should be better, but I don't see us losing that one at home coming off a bye.
Illinois looks like a tossup. They return the core of their offense and lose just 3 starters on defense. I know you don't think much of Scheelhaase but in all probability either he will be much improved or they will replace him with someone better.
I'm not ready to concede the Neb or OSU games. Neb's offense is inconsistent this year. They sputtered against Texas' weak run defense. They return 7 starters but lose Helu. The defense loses 5 starters including 3 DBs. OSU's offense loses only the guards and 1 WR but the returners are mostly juniors now and are not likely to improve much. The defense loses 7 starters including all of their difference makers.
Expect to win: WMU, EMU, SDSU, Minn, Pur
Near tossup, but would pick M: ND, NW, MSU, Iowa, Illinois
Near tossup, but would pick opp: Neb, OSU
To finish 7-5 or worse, we would probably have to lose at 3 of the 5 games in the second category, which would be very disappointing.
Obviously, this comes down to one's feelings on toss-up games.
4 of the 5 you have listed are on the road. I believe UM will lose at least 2 and, very likely, 3 of those road games.
My confidence levels re: the toss-up games for UM next season (chance UM wins in parens):
MSU's offense is losing 6 starters but 2 of those starters are a TE and FB which are easily replacable positions with little loss of productivity from player to player. The only significant loss on offense is 3 starting OL. They will still have Cousins, Baker, Bell, Caper and several dangerous WR's back.
How either side of a debate can always find evidence to support their stance. Though you are scarping the bottom of the barrell with Mr. Steele.
I would say there is 11% chance we don't finish with a better record and I don't need Mr. Steele to back up my point.
The only way I see us not improving next years is if the defensive staff remains intact. If that happens, all bets are off.
In other news Brett Favre is reconsidering retirement
I wish I could kick BF in the nuts.
return a large number of starters for the next year, the liklihood of an improved record is very high.
...might be predictive if they didn't ignore every other unquantifiable factor that tells us that next year's team will be better.
You had a nice run being able to add content Logan.
You'd hope that our youth makes us an exception to this generalization. I would like to think that, with another year of experience, our young guys on both sides of the ball will turn those close wins into decisive wins and turn some of those convincing losses into toss-ups. We had a ton of chances against ND and Indiana, for example, to make those games uncompetitive.
I think our unique situation with so much young players makes us exceptional here.
In that case, I guess we should just start over after this season since we are going to be average again next year. Why bother even playing the remainder of the games this season.
You're reading that stat wrong. This stat shows that Michigan is probably on the lucky side of 7-5, so any improvement next year should be off of a baseline of 6-6 or 5-7.
If he just ran returning starters the same way, we'd look like a 4-game improvement perhaps.
It's just too general of a stat. The point is that some of the "improvement" will have to come atop of repeating good luck. Getting an infusion of talent and experience in the secondary next year is, alone, probably worth as much improvement as we got from winning close games this year against Notre Dame, UMass, Indiana, Illinois.
Sixty percent of the time, Phil Steele's predictions work every time.
Funny, that book is on the table, about 5 feet behind me. Still hasn't been opened.
And I can say that with 57.6% honesty because I've read 5/6 of that book*. On nearly every other page I can point to methods that prove you wrong over 75% of the time.
In conclusion, the percent error for the distance the book is behind you as we speak is generally around 64%.
* I may or may not have read more than just the book title, but I think I'm already getting the hang of it.
(2) Consistent Progress.
(3) Next year is a better schedule + time for younger players to get better + T-Wolf and JT Floyd.
A team that wins a bunch of close games one year and doesn't get a lot better the next year will probably regress (like Iowa this year), but we are still getting better, applying these stats to our team is a waste of time. As we get better, we will pull away from teams like Indiana, and compete with teams like Wisconsin. Hopefully, next year we will win a few close games against the better teams in the B10.
We'll probably end up on his "most improved" list again for the third year in a row. He has been putting us there repeatedly because we have been "young" every year and our turnover margin has been terrible.
Also, if you read Phil, you'll see that he doesn't automatically just pick one indicator and predict a record from it. He analyzes each position group. losses from the draft, net yardage differential. Everything.
While you can glean a decent amount from data, this place acts like it's the end all be all. It seems like every week there are 45 charts projecting, predicting, and analyzing.
Did we really need charts to figure out Wisconsin has a massive o-line with good backs and we have a very bad defense. Hence, Wisconsin will probably run at will.
I'm waiitng for a player to tweet that he has indegestion and his farts stink, then someone to immediately put together a chart going over the records of tems who have had a key player fart within 24 hours of kickoff.
There is one game left this year against our most hated rival and then a bowl game. Next year will take care of itself because the A.D. will be making a decision about our future. And he's a hell of an A.D. I trust him to do whatever is best for us. I hope he keeps our coach, but if he doesn't, I'll understand that too. Right now, there's hate to focus and it's on the city of Columbus.
Bring up the stats on returning 21 of 24 starters and see what the improvement is there.
Not saying this is guaranteed, but if we get a favorable bowl match up and light up the scoreboard with a convincing win, we will generate a lot of buzz for top 10 and sleeper categories up the ass next year.
Once all the drama peels away and everyone stops making fun of the defense, guys like Steele are going to look at the returning players, our schedule, Denard etc.... and we are going to be the "It" team going into 2011. Hopefully we handle it better than a Georgia or Clemson or other teams that had everything lined up.
But, Steele also has numbers on returning lettermen, plus starting QB returning that speaks to high percentage chance of improving their record
The problem with trends is you can find confilcting ones all the time for the same team
Agreed, but Iowa is a pretty good team to look at:
Iowa had several close wins last season, Iowa returned a veteran starting QB and a large number of returning starters this season and they have dropped off considerably from where they finished 2009.
I don't think UM is going to fall back to a losing record next season, I just think too many people are expecting UM to win 10+ games next season and there is enough data out there to indicate that UM is more likely to win 7 or 8 in the regular season.
What you're saying in this post sure doesn't sound like, "Michigan has an 89% chance of winning 7 or fewer games next season". Especially if you don't think we'll have a losing record.
Actually, I think UM will go 7-5 next season which would not be an improvement on this season's (likely) 7-5 record. Thus, UM would fail to be in that rare 11% that improved their record.
To be honest, this post was mostly to demonstrate that UM will PROBABLY not make the huge improvement that most on this board seem to be predicting for 2011. Remember, when a lot of posters thought UM would win 9 or 10 in 2009? Remember when I lot of posters thought UM would win 9 or 10 in 2010? I simply think many fans don't realize that UM is probably going to be a mediocre Purdue-under-Tiller-type program and win 7 or 8 games a year as long as RR is HC.
Now it has simply turned into a "Neg-Logan into oblivion" fest. Sad that there are so many petty people on this board.
Personally, I think MICH is one game better in 2011 after 10 games than they were this year.
I'd say two games better, but like yourself, I have ND in the toss-up category. It's MICH/ND, hello, nothing is a given and expect the unexpected when those two play
I think Michigan wins the other three OOC games, NW, Minny, Illinois, Purdue
So, thast 1-2 in the ND, at MSU, at Iowa trio. MICH can go 1-2 agasint the bunch
I'm think 8-2 heading into the final two.....from there, we'll see if we are in a better position defensively now than then. I'm willing to keep Rich around, but we had better be in a better position to compete and win those final 2 games than we are now. I'd rather not fire people, that's just me, however.
But, the Steele close game theory does conflict with a couple of his other theories that foretell improvement, like his numbers on experience that I brought up. Thats my real point
I read the Phil Steele magazine pretty thoroughly every year and I think that his "close wins theory" makes sense when you're talking about a team whose level of talent is stagnent from one year to the next. With Michigan, that doesn't apply, as the team's young guys coming back greatly outnumber the seniors leaving (as you mention). Michigan also ought to be able to reduce its turnovers next year, another measuring stick that Steele uses.
that Nebraska and OSU are automatic losses next year.
Basically, i view every Big 10 game next year outside of MN and Purdue as a tossup. With a year under Denard's belt, a maturing offense, and a defense that HAS to be better than this year (even if marginally so), why should any game be a absolute loss?
I would predict, right now, a 9 win season.
Phil Steele is strictly into stats and in my opinion does not do a good job of understanding the intangibles that go into college football.
Apparently the go to resposne here is to mock you. I've seen several other threads here that say Phil Steele is a pretty reliable guy, but I guess not when he doesn't say what you want to hear.
As far as an actual response, I don't think this is an unreasonable thing to post. When you look at this as a generality, it's not at all unreasonable. If you saw a team that won three games in the last minute and got blown out four times, it's not unreasonable to expect that things might not go as well next season.
2011's schedule is a double edge sword. Sure, you get Nebraska and OSU at home, but you also have to go to Iowa, MSU, and Northwestern. Maybe it's better to just play your two toughest games on the road if you are likely to lose them anyway and move the more toss up games home.
So, if you're saying next regular season is going to be an improvement, you are assuming that UM will win one of @Iowa, @MSU, Nebraska, or Ohio State, OR not slip up anywhere else on the schedule. I'm optimistic, but that doesn't mean ending up 7-5 again or worse is at all out of the question.
Did anyone here rip Phil Steele when he predicted us to win 8 games this year?
With two games to play, he might not be wrong
Well...I was kinda saying that no one had a problem with Steele when he predicted a good season...it's only when he says we aren't going to get better. Anyway, I'd love to beat OSU but it's not happening. Hopefully, we do end up 8-5 instead of 7-6.
The does not shock me. It's kinda like how people's activity on the board changes based on result of the MICH game.
I am a big Steele fan, myself. I could not be ready for the season without his preseason mag
In his mag, he called for a winning record, return to bowl game, but also had OSU, Iowa, Wisco, PSU and MSU all picked ahead of MICH in the Big 10.
Sounds like he's been pretty dead on.
It's like in HTTV, all of pegged the team as 7-5....how in the world can I freak out when my prediction is actually, you know, coming true
People's ignorance of how statistics works is so mindblowing sometimes allthetime. Damn it.
But yeah that statistic is super interesting and suggests (insinuates?) we've been super lucky all year and we won't be anywhere near as lucky next year. Let's go jump off a cliff like a pack of lemmings. You first.
Woh woh woh, statistics say we have been Lucky all year? I think statistics should have a little sit down with Angry Michigan Hating God, because he has made it a point that this should not happen.. and he has forbidden it for quite a while now.
sobering stastic. Ed: bump to front page? :)
What is with everyone on this board being so reliant on statistics. Statistically PennSt. should have been a win. Statistically Jonas Mouton is a better linebacker than Greg Jones. Statistically if the election were today Sarah Palin would be our president. I don't remember who said it, but my hat goes off to the individual who said the following: " There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are STATISTICS"