OT: What is the most over-rated Big Ten football program?
August 5th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
Thanks.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from. As I look back through history I feel like, based on reputation, Michigan has a history of underachieving be it losing a game it had no business losing or having a series of unimpressive showings on the national stage (Schembechler's bowl record).
And don't get me wrong 9-3, 8-4 is an impressive record at most of the schools in the country but Michigan propping up a 9-3 season is akin to most other schools in the country bragging about going 6-6.
I'm still mystified about that Henson, Terrell, Thomas team from 2000 and their underachievement.
I'm still mystified about that Henson, Terrell, Thomas team from 2000 and their underachievement.
It's called "defense" and "offensive ingenuity." Had the 2000 team had either, they would've averaged 45 points per game (as opposed to 30-ish) and they would've cruised to the national title game.
I kind-of think you are right. I don't think "offensive ingenuity" was the problem, per se, so much as overall team management.
For instance, I think that offensive line's talents, as well as Anthony Thomas' would've been wasted in a Northwestern spread-type of offense (a standard for offensive ingenuity at that time).
If, however, Carr would've just made the decision to win every close game in a shootout, as opposed to trying to protect a defense that clearly "didn't get it" the results might've been far more palatable for Wolverine nation.
Ingenuity might have made a difference in the second half against Purdue, but we needed to execute a lot better than we did in any case. Likewise I'm not sure how ingenious we could have gotten against UCLA with a freshman Navarre in there.
an endless parade of unremarkable 8-4, 9-3 seasons in which they feed off of the lower tier of their conference while struggling mightily against conference powers.
This sounds more like a description of Wisconsin than Michigan. The only conference power we've struggled against this past decade is OSU. Carr had a great record against every other Big Ten program, not to mention a winning record against the SEC (something not many other league programs can claim) in bowls.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
The only reason Iowa lost the Big 10 championship was because Stanzi was hurt, and you're calling them lucky???
August 5th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^
There are a lot of people here who don't give Iowa any credit, I mean, they were lucky to win the Orange Bowl, right? They were a great team, and probably will hover around 9 or 10 wins this year. Not overrated.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
They were incredibly lucky to dominate the shit out of Georgia Tech...
August 5th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
Most over-rated within its own fan base: MSU (a 6-7 bowl season is not a success)
Most over-rated due to a single victory/season: Illinois still living off beating OSU and their 9-4 Rose Bowl season
Most over-rated going into this season: Penn St. (QB troubles are a-brewin')
Most over-rated after last season: Iowa - that offense, and Stanzi, were below average
Most over-rated even though they've done nothing of any worth in over 60 years: Minnesota (considered a "Bowl team" year-in-year-out but never good enough to matter)
August 5th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
Rated where they should be: OSU, PSU, Wisconsin
I think most people see OSU and PSU as part of the Big 10's upper division, which their performance bears out. Wisconsin is what everyone thinks they are: a rock solid, always good, never outstanding program.
Slightly under-rated: Iowa
I don't think many would realize that Iowa, by record, is VERY SLIGHTLY behind #2 Michigan in the '00's. They went to 3 BCS bowls (as many as Michigan) and won one (better than Michigan). I don't think people realize how strong they've been
Completely under-rated: Northwestern
Nobody ever picks them as a bowl team, and Fitzgerald has won 17 games in the past 2 seasons. They are good, not lucky.
Marginally over-rated: Michigan
We're simply not a national power - we've been one twice this decade - 2003 and 2006 - and 2006 proved to be something of a sham. We're not Florida, Texas, Bama, USC, OSU right now. Sorry.
Completely over-rated: MSU
Always talked about as a Title contender. Never anywhere close.
and that was technically in 2000. OK, it was the 99' season, but lets count it. Come on.... please....... I want to be better than Iowa..... please...
Ok, were going to count it. We one a BCS game in the 00s, and we are back to being far better than Iowa.
That's a fair assessment.
Sure, if you are only using a two year frame of reference. But prior to the past two years, UM dominated PSU ... not just beat them but dominated them. Here are some stats:
http://michiganagainsttheworld.blogspot.com/2007/09/wo-own-penn-state-r…
Clearly, UM has had a rough couple of years and we also underperformed in 2007 given the talent we had, but UM has won more B10 titles (second only to OSU) and has consistently manhandled PSU since they joined the conference in '93. We beat them 9 straight times up to and including 2007 and no team in the conference (including OSU) has a better record against PSU (10-5).
You cannot intelligently place PSU in the upper echelon of the B10 without UM. I would argue that all three of OSU, UM and PSU are in the upper echelon, but if UM is not then PSU is not.
Note 1: Number of B10 titles since 1993 (OSU 9, UM 5, PSU 3, WI 3, NW 3, IA 1, IL 1, PUR 1)
Note 2: Number of national championships since 1993 (OSU 1, UM 1)
August 5th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
I think MSU is only overrated to those living in the state of Michigan. We always hear from Sparty fans and papers that they will be better next year, but it doesn't really happen. I don't think MSU gets any national attention though. To people outside of B10 country, we are the most overrated, with OSU 2nd. NW and Wisconsin are pretty underrated.
Agreed. MSU overrated-ness is a local phenomenon. That said, their consistent mediocrity has resulted in them being a sexy "dark-horse" pick to win the Big Ten among national sports writers for some reason. It always seems to be "they had a decent season last year and have a lot of returning starters, so they could break out this year". It's not a real risky pick, because they'll probably go 6-6 and you won't look like a complete fool for picking them as a long shot. "Well, they were competitive but just didn't catch the breaks they needed".
Another potential data point in the "is Michigan overrated" debate: How many times did we beat the spread as a favored team in the '00s? We'd always have these huge lines in our favor and then win the games but not by huge margins. This seems to suggest that the public at large expected us to be more dominant than we were, ergo, we were overrated.
That said, I'm not ashamed to be overrated. We earned it over a century of football excellence. We're overrated because people respect (and have heard of) our program. Now we just need to get back to that so that the idea of being "overrated" will be meaningless.
August 5th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
In terms of preseason expectations vs. real performance, I think Illinois takes the cake this decade, but unfortunately UM is not that far behind. With Illinois, it is always recruiting potential and "studs" on the team that flounder in real games. With UM, they have consistent top-10 talent but have struggled mightily since the mid-90s to consistently play up to that potential. I'm not saying they are disappointing, but UM should be up there with the OSU, UF, UT, etc., but while those teams have challenged for titles UM has consistently played "well", but not up to the talent level.
As for underrated, NW has been sneaky-good every year. Iowa has been decent in spurts, but there was a time in the mid-00's when there were quite a few years in the mid-00's when they were a meh team and everyone knew it.
As for MSU, nobody expects them to be anything more than the 4th-to-8th-best Big 10 team, and they rarely disappoint in that respect.
Edit: What happened to my long post?
God smote it.
I think in general an overrated team has to be traditionally one of the top three teams in a conference. So I don't think MSU or Wisconsin would fit the bill. Traditionally Michigan would surely fit that bill since they have been a Big Ten power, and had 3-4 loses many of those years.
There will always be teams overrated, and there will always be teams underrated. I would prefer to be overrated as it indicates past success.
Good insight there. I think people need to remember that when partaking in overrated/underrated discussions that just because you say somebody is overrated doesnt mean you're saying they are bad or that they suck.
Michigan State
Kirk Cousins was a walk-on. They just got dumb-lucky that he has turned out as well as he has, even though he's not an All-Big Ten player, regardless of what anybody says. If they "knew" how good of a player he was going to be, they would have offered a scholarship from the beginning.
Otherwise they would be starting a QB that they now talk about as such as great WR. What?
I think he was a scholarship player right from the get-go.
and Illinois blows. Almost always.
When they are half-decent, their massive Chicago-based fan base acts like they are a frigging dynasty, but they have never won anything in basketball or football.
Simply put,
Sparty is overrated.
And Wisconsin is a tad underrated, at least from my perspective.
what have they done lately other than get ranked in the top 10 by beating the citadel and wisconsin-whitewater and then proceeding to be meh the whole rest of the season for which the are rewarded with another pre-season top 10 ranking the next year
1) Michigan State for all of the reasons listed above.
2) Ohio State: The Buffalo Bills of the BCS.
U of M overall for the last decade is by far the most overrated each season. That is what the sometimes painful "revolution of Rich" is all about fixing.
But your conclusion is spot on.
(Liking the quote as well)
It seems as if there is confusion about "overrated" and "underacheiving." They aren't mutually exclusive, there have been some exceptionally talented teams that have underacheived but that doesn't make them overrated. Overrated suggests an undeserved bias of some sort. 07 Michigan wwas coming off an 11-2 season, and barely lost the best game played in the 06 season. They had 8 guys currently on NFL rosters ON OFFENSE. They deserved a top 5 ranking because anyone in the country that goes 11-2 and returns future NFL talent at every skill position will be in the same place. In that regard you cannot say UM07 was overrated, they underachieved to proportions never before seen.
I had a flashback and expected to see DrWorm
August 6th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^
Overrated:
1. Michigan
2. Penn State
3. Ohio State
Underrated:
1. Indiana
2. Purdue
3. Minnesota
We all take for granted that the top 3 are good programs. Despite your team vs program argument, they are linked pretty strongly. Michigan is vastly overrated for the product they put on the field. Penn State has a lot of question marks for a top 10 team. OSU is just on there because they're picked #1, which makes them seem big time, but I don't think they hold up to a "great national team". That's slightly different than a great Big Ten team.
Indiana and Purdue will be decent this year. Purdue isn't getting much respect outside of West Lafayette and those around Michigan who still feel the pain of last year's loss. Indiana has a lot going for it, but are always picked to finish horribly. Minnesota is uniformly dismissed as horrible. They can't be that bad, can they? Basically the opposite of the Ohio State argument, they're at the bottom, so we're probably undervaluing them.