The Team during my lifetime 1966 to present.
I was having this conversation with the wife and her brother today. It started with this question? When has Michigan been dominate during our lifetime? Never actually, sometimes great amd mostly consistant is what I remember. My point is, why do we bash the current coaching staff when history says we haven't really done anything lately. 1 NC in my lifetime. I am not going to stop rooting or supporting the team ever. I just sit here and read this blog and like the previous post....come back from the ledge and grip reality. Have a great weekend and lets see what happens against the Buckeyes.
Mike.
before the spelling Nazi gets me...its consistent not consistant.
November 21st, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
My point is, why do we bash the current coaching staff when history says we haven't really done anything lately.
Here's why people are upset with the current staff's performance. Here's Michigan's record since 1993, when the NCAA reduced scholarships to 85, and also when Penn State joined the conference:
1993: 8-4 (5-3)
1994: 8-4 (5-3)
1995: 9-4 (5-3)
1996: 8-4 (5-3)
1997: 12-0 (8-0)
1998: 10-3 (7-1)
1999: 10-2 (6-2)
2000: 9-3 (6-2)
2001: 8-4 (6-2):
2002: 10-3 (6-2)
2003: 10-3 (7-1)
2004: 9-3 (7-1)
2005: 7-5 (5-3)
2006: 11-2 (7-1)
2007: 9-4 (6-2)
2008: 3-9 (2-6)
2009: 5-7 (1-7)
2010: 7-4 (3-4)
Since 1993, we've posted two losing seasons, and two losing seasons in conference play. (Actually, this goes back to 1968, but we'll stick with the 1993 cutoff.) Both occurred under the current regime - and we are in danger of posting a third losing conference season this year. In other words, we are not closer to winning a national title - or a Big Ten title for that matter - under the current staff than we were under Moeller or Carr. The notion that we're going to go from winning fewer than half our games in conference to suddenly winning national titles seems a little farfetched.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^
I'm probably going to get this slightly wrong, but it's basically right, and I offer it as food for thought (although I'm not entirely sure where it takes us):
Since 1983, USC has had three losing seasons and four .500 seasons -- so, this was after their arguable dominance of the 70s, but before their most recent dominance.
On the one hand, we can take the last two years as rebuilding, and not despair because there is still a chance that we're heading for a brighter future. On the other hand, I think it is correct to say that USC's losing and .500 seasons came with coaches that then got fired, and the dominance came with a new coach.
(Full disclosure -- I think RR has done more than enough to merit another year, although he has to get a new DC who he gives nearly complete independence. And it has to be the right DC (and I think GERG was OBVIOUSLY not the right DC when he was selected).)
November 21st, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^
Dantonio went 6-7 last year in his third season in East Lansing. By jmblue's logic they were nowhere close to having their best season in decades but that is what is happening in year four as a large crop of Dantonio's first recruits begin to mature. The same thing happened when he was at Cincinnati (though Brian Kelly got all the credit for it after he took over in what would have been Dantonio's fourth year).
My question to jmblue would be, what do you honestly think this team's record is going to be next year with the steady improvement we've seen the last two years, loads of room to grow and improve on defense and special teams, and the return of 19 starters next season?
November 21st, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
And despite that, they've barely gotten to 10-1, they've needed a fake field goal, a fake punt, and a blocked punt. Sure, they've succeeded and they've won, but I think people are kidding themselves if they think Sparty is someone going to stay near the top of the conference, especially once their scheduling advantage (though they now have IU every year) changes.
I'd be willing to bet that Dantonio has a nearr 500 record over the next 5 years.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^
Looking at Michigan since 1993 got me wondering about other programs over the same period. Here is a list of 5 schools over that same period. Could have done many other schools, these are the first 5 that came to mind. An * equals a National Championship.
What quickly stands out is that unlike these 5 schools, Michigan does not have a period of true sustained excellence/dominance for a 4-8 year run like all of these schools had at one point.
| U Texas | Nebraska | Miami (YTM) | tOSU | FSU | |
| 1993 | 5-5-1 (5-2-1) | 11-1 (7-0) | 9-3 (6-1) | 10-1-1 (6-1-1) | 12-1 (8-0)* |
| 1994 | 8-4 (4-3) | 13-0 (7-0)* | 10-2 (7-0) | 9-4 (6-2) | 10-1-1 (7-1) |
| 1995 | 10-2-1 (7-0) | 12-0 (7-0)* | 8-3 (6-1) | 11-2 (7-1) | 10-2 (7-1) |
| 1996 | 8-5 (6-2) | 11-2 (8-0) | 9-3 (6-1) | 11-1 (7-1) | 11-1 (8-0) |
| 1997 | 4-7 (2-6) | 13-0 (8-0)* Grr | 5-6 (3-4) | 10-3 (6-2) | 11-1 (8-0) |
| 1998 | 9-3 (6-2) | 9-4 (5-3) | 9-3 (5-2) | 11-1 (7-1) | 11-2 (7-1) |
| 1999 | 9-5 (6-2) | 12-1 (7-1) | 9-4 (6-1) | 6-6 (3-5) | 12-0 (8-0)* |
| 2000 | 9-3 (7-1) | 10-2 (6-2) | 11-1 (7-0) | 8-4 (5-3) | 11-2 (7-1) |
| 2001 | 11-2 (7-1) | 11-2 (7-1) | 12-0 (7-0)* | 7-5 (5-3) | 8-4 (5-3) |
| 2002 | 11-2 (6-2) | 7-6 (3-5) | 12-1 (7-0) | 14-0 (8-0)* | 9-5 (6-2) |
| 2003 | 10-3 (7-1) | 10-3 (5-3) | 11-2 (6-1) | 11-2 (6-2) | 10-3 (6-2) |
| 2004 | 11-1 (7-1) | 5-6 (3-5) | 9-3 (5-3) | 8-4 (4-4) | 9-3 (6-2) |
| 2005 | 13-0 (8-0)* | 8-4 (4-4) | 9-3 (6-2) | 10-2 (7-1) | 8-5 (5-3) |
| 2006 | 10-3 (6-2) | 9-5 (6-2) | 7-6 (3-5) | 12-1 (8-0) | 7-6 (3-5) |
| 2007 | 10-3 (5-3) | 5-7 (2-6) | 5-7 (2-6) | 11-2 (7-1) | 7-6 (4-4) |
| 2008 | 12-1 (7-1) | 9-4 (5-3) | 7-6 (4-4) | 10-3 (7-1) | 9-4 (5-3) |
| 2009 | 13-1 (8-0) | 10-4 (6-2) | 9-4 (5-3) | 11-2 (7-1) | 7-6 (5-3) |
| 2010 | 5-6 (2-5) | 9-2 (5-2) | 7-4 (5-3) | 10-1 (6-1) | 8-3 (6-2) |
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^
1997 12-0, 1998 10-3, 1999 10-2, 2000 9-3 (but for Henson being hurt...).
But Nebraska, Miami, and FSU's sustained excellence all fell under a cloud of a lot of cheating and/or recruiting some pretty bad characters. I suppose people could question some of OSU too, if you really wanted to be a hater. And many had some pretty down times in those periods. But if you could only find 5 programs with more sustained excellence than ours during that time period, I'm ok with it.
Though I was curious why it was original started in 1993....when 1988-1992 we kicked some ass. Even if you just want to go post Bo, that would be 1990. But that could leave out early 80's and 70's dominance. Which would make some of those programs look a lot worse. It wasn't the high of the highest point at any given time...it was greatness sustained longer than anyone.