The Struggles of Traditional Football Powers
Here's some food for thought:
Texas: 5-7 (2-6) in 2010
Miami (YTM): 7-5 in 2010, 7-6 in 2008, 5-7 in 2007, 7-6 in 2006, etc
Notre Dame: lol, we all know about this one!
USC: 7-4 (4-4) in 2010, plus devastating sanctions
Florida: 7-5 (4-4) in 2010
Florida State: having a good year in 2010, but has been down a while compared to norms
Penn State: 7-5 (4-4) in 2010
Iowa: falls to 7-5 after losing to Minny today...same record as us, although better in BT play
(Yes I know Iowa is not a traditional power, but I still thought I'd throw them in here.)
I didn't even mention things like USC prior to Carrol or Bama prior to Saban. I also left out several other programs that used to be good but have really collapsed, such as Washington, etc.
Now, I'm not trying to say that the past 3 seasons at Michigan are no big deal. What I am trying to say is that even the biggest and baddest programs take a step back every now and then. Michigan's step back has been one of the biggest. But we are slowly climbing back to what we used to be IMO, and regardless of whether or not you thought this program needed rebuilding to begin with, that is the reality now.
This is probably the hardest time in the history of Michigan athletics to be a Michigan fan. But other programs have come out the other side, and I have faith that we will too. Keep the faith and Go Blue!
November 27th, 2010 at 7:17 PM ^
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Stanzi is going to defect to Utah!!!
November 27th, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^
But, but, Iowa's awesome, which is why it was perfectly OK for us to get dominated by them at home!
November 27th, 2010 at 8:12 PM ^
umm this was Stanzi's senior year.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:21 PM ^
Are all those schools going to fire their head coach's because of their "unacceptable" records? Man there is going to be some sweet coaching talent available soon.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
Definitely not.
And I personally don't want Michigan to fire RR. I want one more year.
I just didn't want that to be the main point of my post.
My main point is that we're going to be ok and that we're not the first program to go through this.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^
I was being VERY sarcastic. That list is a "who's who" of coaching. My point was that unlike here in AA my guess is that none of those names is facing an angry mob demanding their dismissal.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:29 PM ^
Thanks Comrade for reminding people of this.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:31 PM ^
Iowa and Penn St at 7-5 is not making me feel better considering how we lost to them handidly.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^
"Handidly," of course, being a portmanteau of handily and candidly. Good on ya, creating a new word!
November 27th, 2010 at 8:53 PM ^
November 27th, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^
So who do you want us to lose to? I constantly hear complains that we don't beat anyone good and just don't understand who we should lose to instead, then. Bad teams? I guess the answer is that we should never lose to anyone, but whatever. Would you rather be in Iowa's place? Having beaten PSU and MSU (forgetting rivalry comparisons, as I'm just trying to make a point on team quality) and losing to Northwestern and Minnesota? Is that better? Does that prove we're better than those good teams but screwed up against bad ones? Or did we just get lucky and then lose to poor teams? You can manipulate the events anyway you want, but at the end of the day, all that really matters is the record.
November 27th, 2010 at 8:36 PM ^
Congratulations. That is one of the most nonsensical posts I've ever read on these boards, which is saying something.
As though inability to compete with decent teams is not a legitimate issue. You do your position no favors making arguments like this.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^
That's not what I'm saying at all. Of course it's an issue that we aren't beating any of the top teams in the Big Ten. But, that's in large part because we weren't a top Big Ten team this year. We're a 7-5 team. My complaint is with the people who think beating one of the top teams, but losing to one of the bottom-dwellers would have proved something more than that. Shit happens, teams get lucky, teams screw up and lose when they shouldn't. At the end of the day, we're a mediocre team this year (and worse the two years before that). Pulling off an upset doesn't change that fact.
My sentiment is similar to Switch's, though he put it much more succinctly. However, I'm not saying that I would rather lose to the big boys and beat the bad, simply that either way, it doesn't change anything.
November 27th, 2010 at 8:30 PM ^
Sorry, but id rather lose to teams with winning records and 3 top 10 programs, then lose to shitty teams in the Big ten again.
At least we BEAT the dumpster teams in the big ten this year, which we couldn't say a year ago.
Hopefully next year depending on what happens we can turn the corner on Iowa, MSU etc..
November 27th, 2010 at 8:41 PM ^
Scruffy believes in this company
November 27th, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
I am now one step further away from the edge. Perspective is coming back.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:48 PM ^
Prior to Bo raising our expectations. Bo probably had it easier than RR because no one was watching him as closely and the local papers weren't trying to get him fired. Can you imagine Bo coming in now and dealing with the Freep if they were as slanted against him as they are towards RR. I bet Bo would be in jail for kicking that reporters ass with that reporters own notepad. I think Bo would support RR today, too bad he wasn't still here, I don't think the support from the outside would be so split.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:56 PM ^
Winning games also has a way of quieting media criticism.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:51 PM ^
Texas, Florida, and USC are in the midst of mere blips following years of sustained success. Unless they continue to struggle, there's no evidence to suggest they're really down.
November 27th, 2010 at 8:07 PM ^
Michigan is in a four-year "blip." Only two of those years were under .500. Most schools have had a lot more than that in the last forty years.
November 27th, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^
We've seen a ton of misery the last 3 seasons but I think the thing that shocks me the most is the number of conference losses we've had. 18 conference losses in 3 seasons. That's unheard of! We own the Big 10 all time. Prior to 2008, it took us 12 seasons to lose 18 conference games. Now we've lost the same amount of games in 3 seasons.
From the end of 1996 to 2007, we were 72-18 in the Big Ten. From 2008 to 2010, we are 6-18. That still doesn't feel real to me.
November 27th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^
That record is brutal. It's amazing to think that we could go undefeated in conference play next season and he'd still be below .500. How many seasons, realstically, would it likely take RR to get back to .500 in conference play? How about against OSU? MSU?
November 27th, 2010 at 7:57 PM ^
I agree. Alas conversations like these just don't happen anymore among UM alumni.
November 27th, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^
are not as bad as 3-9. Also, we are 15-21 under RR. That is an average of 5-7 for 3 years.
Try, instead, comparing Ohio State. They are, after all, our biggest rival. They are team we are compared to the most.
2002- 14 - 0 NC
2003- 11 - 2
2004- 8 - 4
2005- 10 - 2
2006- 12 - 1
2007- 11 - 2
2008- 10 - 3
2009- 11 - 2
2010 (so far)- 10 - 1
That adds to 97 - 17.
Almost 11 - 2 as an average.
November 27th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^
PSA: OSU is 11-1 this year.
November 27th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^
Plus one.
November 27th, 2010 at 8:06 PM ^
Haha, your point was right on. I was just messing with you because you wrote (so far) next to their 10-1 record.
November 27th, 2010 at 8:41 PM ^
........a decent coach who could recruit very well prior to bringing in Tressel. Tressel is a very good football coach who didn't have to deal with lack of, or loss of talent, nor did he have to deal with completely revamping their offense to his own style. He doesn't have an offensive style. He adapts the offense to take advantage of his team's strengths, but because of that, he will never develop a consistently powerful offense year to year. On the flip side, his defenses are always good, mainly because they have never had a drop in quality of players recruited. He came into a team with better talent, and continued that.
I don't think it's quite fair to RR to compare him to Tressel.
November 27th, 2010 at 9:20 PM ^
He doesn't have an offensive style. He adapts the offense to take advantage of his team's strengths, but because of that, he will never develop a consistently powerful offense year to year.
This is hilarious - you have got to be kidding. Tressel's "no style" offense seems to have kicked our ass for the past (and just about every other team they've played), oh, 7 years straight. Our powerful offense just scored 7 total points against his team today. I'm pretty sure he's sleeping okay with the knowledge that he "will never develop a consistently powerful offense year to year." Gee, I'd really hate to have the Tressel offense at UM (mother effing /s)
I don't think it's quite fair to RR to compare him to Tressel.
No, it's not. They are not in the same league. Tressel is one of the best coaches in the country. Hands down.
November 27th, 2010 at 8:52 PM ^
Cal may not be a traditional power, but they're 5-7 this year, and this is the first year Tedford is missing a bowl. Funny how Cal was irrelevant for so long, and he turned the program around, but now he's on the hot seat.