rivals counting down rankings from 120: #47 MSU, no M yet
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094845
Rivals is unveiling their 2010 college football rankings, counting down backwards from 120. M hasn't been announced yet, and the Sparties are #47. 2010 Big Ten teams ranked so far:
- #47 MSU
- #57 Northwestern
- #62 Purdue
- #76 Minnesota
- #84 Illinois
- #97 Indiana
So, according to rivals, M will be at worst 5th place in the Big Ten (4-4) and make a bowl game.
I have a feeling they will go trendy and pick us at either 1 above sparty, or within 1 of UConn.
This. Steele had MSU one in front of us. Michigan will be somewhere between 40-46.
...we learn today that they have Texas Tech at #46.
Sounds about right.
no one is going to pick us a 'winner' until we actually win. Everyone knows what Coach Rod can do but he has yet to show it here at Michigan in the Big 10 (12). The transition is still not complete and there are too many variables: Will the secondary be competent, who is going to step up among the running backs, the fact that the team is still quite young, and not to mention a tough schedule to boot. Other facets I'm sure; until we turn the corner and start winning we're not going to be getting love from the pundits.
Good to see you on Steve. I think Rivals is looking realistically at the sort of development that should happen this year for RichRod's team. I bid somewhere in the 30s.
My guess is 33 and I don't have any evidence to back me up and I don't need any because no one has any better guess. Hmphhhh.....
I will bid #34 on that showcase Bob.
That's okay, I am winning the bonus money for my guess being dead on. Hmppppppph!
Phil Steele has both M and MSU in the top 40
Perhaps they are taking a leap of faith that RR can have the second, strike that, third year jump at UM like he did in year 2 at WVU. In 2001, RR's offense was 108th in the nation in turnovers lost. Rasheed Marshall got a bit of PT that year, and then in 2002, as a sophomore, WVU was 2nd in the nation in turnovers lost, thus improving 6 games to 9-4. If UM and Tate/Denard can have the same improvement in year 2, we're talking 15+ less turnovers, and that could be the difference in UM ending up 9-3 this regular season. People are focusing on the defense this offseason; I think ball security is the name of the game for RR and UM in 2010.
Holding on to the goddamn ball, and no other imporvement would put us easily at 7 wins.
...related. Fewer offensive turnovers increases TOP and increases the number of yards required to score by the opposition. Those things lead to better scoring defense which is the ultimate metric.
I've always used number of times the Muppets make an appearance during the football season as my ultimate metric
I think there are three factors to improving turn-over ratio over last year:
1. Keeping Molk healthy,
2. Tate learning not to go all Brett Favre, and
3. DRob improving his throwing accuracy.
Last year was night-and-day before Molk's injury and after. Moosman tried his best, but by his second game as Center, I found myself holding my breath on every snap of the ball he made. Molk's return will (hopefully) reduce the number of those sorts of turn-overs.
Tate's a wild card. I saw a little of last year's "gun slinger" in this year's Spring Game. Makes me nervous. Hopefully, a year's maturity will teach him when to just throw the ball to the cute girl in the stands and not try to force a throw into double coverage.
DRob was much improved in the passing game during the Spring Game, but I'm a little concerned that in the heat of a game, last year's tendency to over shoot his receiver may reappear.
in the home opener against Uconn may be helping us in the Rivals ranking...
They probably want to rank Uconn just outside the top 25 so it may be helping us out.
They had a decent year and will be a veteran team this year.
This is a great point. To further the argument:
1) Typically a team gets ~ 3 points for being at home. Since we're -3 (and obviously playing at home), the odds makers have us basically at "as good as UConn".
2) Michigan has a larger fan base than UConn, so that could be driving the point spread from say, pick 'em, to -3.
So, whether you believe it's #1 (Mich/UConn right next to each other in the rankings) or #2, (UConn ~5-10 spots ahead of Michigan in the rankings) - one of them is probably correct.
Mid- to late-30's sounds about right. I expect us to be near UConn, probably a couple of spots behind. UConn will be a fringe top-25 team this year.
If I recall correctly, they had us at number 41.
and I believe Rivals and Yahoo are partners so that sounds right to me.
Yahoo owns Rivals
... I just worry about too many unknowns, including starting QB...
... didn't even realize it. I actually switched to that avatar after the OSU game, at which point I said I was going into hibernation for ~9 months. Only a couple months left...
"After that, you won't see any team rankings from Rivals until early October. The reason: We will wait until enough games have been played so we can legitimately rank the teams."
What kind of crap is that? Take a stand cowards!
I wish there were alot more "cowards" pushing that kind of "crap".
I'm sick of rankings reflecting preconceived notions and assumptions as much(if not more) than what actually happens on the field.
I'm sick of highly ranked teams hanging arround long after they've been exposed...And unranked(or low ranked) teams kicking ass for half of the season or better before getting any respect(and being behind the curve once they do get noticed).
Mostly because those making the rankings want to be proven right...Or at least "less wrong".
I'd love to see everyone shut up about "rankings" until Oct...At least anyone with any kind of influence.
This is good - the UCONN game is continuing to shape up as a huge opener. Will be a lot of buzz and excitement.
Michigan is and always will be one of the schools that gets the benefit of the doubt. If we beat a fringe top 25 team (UConn) and win at the University of College Football (the media is still a bunch of suckers for Notre Dame), we'll get to 5-0, and be ranked for sure.
One thing that really stuck out to me when reading this MSU preview is the size of their DL. The weights of their front 4 are 270, 277, 298, 245, and 3 of those guys' back-ups weigh even less. Combine that with starting LBs that weigh 235, 228 and 225, and MSU has a very undersized front 7. We often get knocked for our size, but nearly every one of our corresponding players is bigger than MSU's, and some by a lot.
I know that Greg Jones is a very good LB, but the front 7 looks like a major weakness for MSU. Add in the fact that 4 of the front 7 are sophomores (including 3 DL) and we should be able to run all over State this fall. If Denard can't run around them (yeah, right), give the ball to Hopkins, he's bigger than almost half of those guys.
Shhhhhhhhhh, you're calling attention to the Big Lie.
The funny thing is their secondary is supposed to be awful. Anderson, Jones, and another LB I'm forgetting the name of right now are very good though.
Anderson is gone.
You are probably thinking of Eric Gordon, although I'm not sure who the Anderson is you're referring to.
Also, after making that last post, it made me think of the UV from last week where Tomahawk Nation looked at the total weight of a front 7 to predict performance. Their cutoff was 1780 lbs, where anything below that spelled trouble. MSU comes in at 1778.
Has to be Trevor Anderson, their loudmouth defensive end from last year. He was a senior.
Absolutely, I was reading their depth chart for this fall, and forgot about him from last fall.
The funny thing, Gholston isn't on their 2-deep on defense, according to Rivals. This surprises me.
He'll be there by midseason, or by the end of the season for sure. Like any PSL kid, he's raw in terms of technique and discipline, so he'll need time before becoming an every down player, but like other high-level PSL players, he's got enough raw talent to be a contributor as a freshman.
Signed,
Will Cambell
MSU's defense doesn't really scare me. It's their offense (especially the skilled position players) that concerns me. Both teams might easily be in the 40s by the end of the game.
Thankfully Dantonio's stone age playcalling and mentality is not conducive to winning shootouts. MSU's strength on offense will be their passing game - just like it was last year. And just like last year, Dantonio will stubbornly try all game to establish the running game behind a bad offensive line, and hover right around 4.0 YPC.
That "stone age" playcalling was good for more total offense (and significantly better passing offense) than ours last year.
I'm also not certain what mentality isn't conducive to winning shootouts... MSU beat Purdue in a shootout to become bowl-eligible, something we failed to do.
I believe RR will get it done here, but his decided schematic advantage over guys like Dantonio (or more accurately, MSU's OC) has yet to be proven on the field.
The yardage difference I'm sure had NOTHING at all to do with the Michigan defense's ability to get off the field either... NOTHING.
That defensive effort was a nightmare. How many times did we allow MSU to convert on 3rd-and-forever? Unless our defense improves dramatically, we'll have a hard time getting bowl eligible regardless of how good our offense is. Gerg's gonna earn his paycheck this year.
MSU scored their first TD on a drive where they had 120 penalty yards.
That is the beginning and the end of the discussion on why we lost to MSU last year.
(if BG doesn't stuff their criminal RB, the score gets even worse)
Dantonio's stone age playcalling has led to one of the better offenses in the Big 10 since he got there... Also folks, lets not forget how much they have completely shut our offense down for the last two years. I'll get negged for this, but that game wasn't even close last year without all the SPARTY NO! moments.
The game wasn't even close last year until Dantonio spent the entire 4th quarter running out of the I into a 8 man front. He did exactly what Lloyd and Debord always used to do, he put the game in the hands of a defense that was ultimately incapable of protecting it. If Michigan was anywhere close to competent last year, MSU fans spend the last nine months screaming about their coach being a wuss. I know it's all "moral victory" sounding, but considering how terrible we've been the last two years, and how close we've been in the two games against MSU (in the sense that any improvement in the basics of football likely means victory), I'm just not that worried about Sam the Eagle up in East Lansing.
I think you're a little too pessimistic; I believe we'd be in the top twenty easily. However, if we then stink up the joint against the Spartoons, we'll plummet right out of there.