What is your definition of success for Michigan football?
While keeping academic standards in the form of a strong graduation rate and a good APR. Also a minium of off the field character issues (and there better not be any of the violent type).
For a single season, win the B1G Championship and go to the Rose Bowl.
For our overall program, success is being able to do that consistantly, with ups and downs of course. A down year every once in a while is acceptable for a good program, ideally for us that means winning against only one of MSU/OSU and finishing second in the division. And those down years ought to be balanced out with years where we compete for National Titles. In the new format it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect a playoff birth every few years.
Annual B1G Title contender, winning it no less than once every 3 years
Competitive, back-and-forth rivalry with OSU, winning more often then not
Semi-dominant rivalry with Notre Dame, winning 2 out of every 3
Completely dominant rivalry with Michigan State, winning 4 out of every 5
This is where I'm at as well. I'd like for Michigan to be a contender at worst, but mostly a favorite for the BIG title every year and a playoff contender in most years. I'm not going to say that I think we should win the national tittle every few years, but I'd like for us to be in the playoffs at a minimum of 1 every 3 to 4 years if it stays at 4 teams.
9+ wins, a shot at the championship, and a January 1st bowlgame. And exactly two uniforms.
High character players and staff...moral high ground and all that...
Should win majority of ohio games. MSU shouldn't mean anything. Beat SEC usually. In national title hunt in most years. Winning the B1G 3 of every 5 seasons would be great too.
One national championship in 10-15 years is good enough for me. But considering the past 70 years of Michigan football, that's too much to ask for.
I expect to go to the Rose Bowl every year. And at the very least compete to go to the Rose Bowl.
The national championship. Back when Bo was coach, the Rose Bowl was the best thing out there. Now we have a 4 team playoff.
10+ wins each year should be a given. Beating Ohio and winning the Big 10 title.
into being ok with 8 wins a season, going to a mediocre bowl and winning. I thonk thats the difference in Bo's bowl record vs Carrs. Sure, Carr did win a NC, but it seemed either feast or famine. Bo's teams were playing Rose Bowls almost every year. I want to be a perrenial conversation at the end of every season. I have no doubt that we are heading that way, and also that Hoke's record when all is said and done will cast a big shadow over Carrs.
Beat OSU, MSU, ND. Win B1G Championship. Do all of that while trying to run the cleanest and most respectable program in the country.
Wins don't mean anything to me if you have to cheat or bend the rules to get them.
1. Beating Ohio State
2. Winning the Big Ten
3. 9 wins or more
4. Beating MSU
Winning the conference every year
Win the big ten title....sadly this means we haven't been successful in a decade. If you would have told be this would ever happen to Michigan football 20 or 25 years ago I would have laughed in your face.
We haven't been real successful outside of a couple of years, that's a fair statement.
The B1G title game, winning and going to Rose Bowl 3/5 years.
- Jan 1 (or later) bowl game
- 10 or more wins
- At least 2 wins against OSU, ND (or top-tier schedule replacement, when there), MSU
- In control of our own destiny for B1G div title when we play OSU
- Competitive in bowl game
- A minimum of major off-field incidents (such as drunk driving, assaults)
- Doing well in the classroom in terms of graduation
Yeah that probably is unrealistic since we have won 1 championship since 1948.
Running a squeaky clean and morally upright program is assumed.
- Beat OSU.
- Beat MSU.
- Win the conference.
- Win 10+ games.
- Win all home games.
- Win the division.
As a whole the 13 year span is impressive. But most agree that its a tale of two periods with the first through 2001when we won big games (beating OSU and winning Rose, Orange, and Citrus Bowls) vs. the end through 2008 when UM couldn't win the big game (like this season).
Everyone would take Carr's first 6-7 years, fans grumbled at the last 6ish years for not winning the big game and losing 4ish games a year.
To the OP's question. My ideal dream scenario would be:
- 9-11 win seasons. In the 13 game world we live in now this should be the norm. Esp when you consider how weak the B1G is. Btw a 9-4 record is 69% winning % so accepting 4 losses (or expecting 9 wins) isn't a stretch.
- At least a split between OSU and the Bowl game most years (3 out of 4 years). This is a tall order, but again this is my ideal. Obviously beating OSU is the priority vs. the bowl game. Losing the last two really just puts a bad taste in the mouth and hurts perception. Esp if the bowl loss is in a Florida bowl against the SEC #3-4 team. Years we lost both and win both offsetting would be nice. I'm assuming most years we split.
- B1G championship every 3 years. Those who stay will be champions. This sounds like a lot but like you mentioned Moeller and Carr won 8 in 18 seasons for a 44% B1G championship rate. so its doable. Also, OU has won the Big 12 8x times since 2000...so there is a precedent in other conferences. I think the Big12 vs. B1G are good comps as well.
This is Michigan fergodsakes. We shoot for the national championship.
Everyone gets a pony.
I think about this question and realize that we have a pretty high bar when it comes to what the program has averaged since 1969. Our average seasonal record would translate to 9-3, we average 2nd in the conference, and when included in the final rankings in the AP and Coaches Poll, we actually average a Top 10 position in both. That's probably something few other programs could use as a baseline measurement in a nearly 45-year span.
That being said, from a summary standpoint, anything within one standard deviation of those numbers is really a pretty successful season numerically, in this case meaning 8-10 wins, somewhere in the top three in the conference (which means being in the discussion for the BTCG if not in it most years). That would mean a Jan 1st or later bowl most of the time. I could take that as a typical expectation statistically as well as from the standpoint of being a fan - in the new system, the odd playoff appearance would be a great addition as well.
In the modern era, the 90's should be regarded as the gold standard for us. This is what we achieved in the 90's:
94-26-3 Overall (.782)
61-17-2 Big Ten (.783)
7-3 in Bowl Games
3-1 in BCS Bowls
2-1 in Rose Bowls
7-2-1 against Ohio State
4-3-1 against Notre Dame
6-4 against Michigan State
5 Big Ten Championships
1 National Championship
2 Undefeated Seasons
2 Heisman Trophy Winners
If we can duplicate that, I'll be happy. There were other teams that were perhaps more dominant in the 90's (Miami, Nebraska), but we had nine good seasons, one perfect season, won a handful of conference championships, and produced two Heisman Trophy winners, all without any rampant misbehavior or trouble with the NCAA. No other program can claim that.
''Our goal is to win the Big Ten Championship...''
I hope we, in the next 5-10 years, become THE rock-solid B1G team. I believe that means:
- Getting out of the non-conference schedule undefeated (will be interesting once Arkansas is a football team again)
- Drubbing who the low-end B1G teams
- Handling the average and above average B1G teams
- Always being competitive with Ohio
- Not having "empty cupboard"/ Angel of Death scenarios (2007 to 2008)
So with those bullets I'd be satisfied with 10 wins on the season and playing for the B1G championship. After that, start worrying about the national title.
To me the minimum is an 8 win season and a bowl appearence in "rebuilding" type years (Minimum) ala you're starting a new young QB, you lose a ton of guys to graduation or the NFL, or you have a new coach. The expectation should be 9 wins, winning 2 of 3 from ND, MSU, and OSU, in the running for the division title, and a New Year's Day bowl (Baseline). Success is a 10 win season, a B1G title, and a Rose Bowl appearence (Success). Anything more than 10 wins is gravy with a 1 loss or undefeated season once a decade or so when all the cards fall our way (It Happens).
This is a process, we've gotten the monkey off our backs with MSU and OSU, we've gone to a BCS bowl and had a 10 win season already, and we haven't had less than 8 wins yet. So far I'd say we're on track and assuming we break through with a B1G title within the next 3 years and never drop under 8 wins.
I'm pretty realistic about Michigan's spot in the college football universe, and I realize that our chances of being the flagship program in the B1G all but went kaput the second OSU snagged Urban Meyer. I also think it's reasonably established by now that to be consistently in the hunt for the MNC, a program has to outright cheat or at the very least play fast and loose with moral grey areas (oversigning, abusing medical hardships etc).
Obviously, I'd hate for my school to be engaging in those kinds of activities, so my barometer of success is very simple: have a top ten-ish type season (11-2 with OSU and BCS wins is dandy to me). Or, absent the quantifiable victories, just be more exciting/entertaining than frustrating/predictable. Having a ten win season against this year's schedule would have been a really tall order, but the second half against OSU, the Bellomy fiasco and the sheer degree of Bama destruction were enough for me to file '12 under "not successful."
I'd put Hoke at one out of two so far, and my pointless speculation is that this is about what I should expect for the near future.
Why do you so readily concede superiority to Meyer? Granted, he has an outstanding track record, but I don't see any reason why Hoke can't go toe-to-toe with him. Hoke has already won more head-to-head recruiting battles against Meyer than he's lost. The Game was pretty competitive and could easily have gone the other way. Hoke hired the same defensive coordinator who Meyer rode to a national championship in 2006. I think the jury is still out on whether Hoke is of the same caliber as Meyer.
My guess is because he believes Meyer is willing to wade deeper into the grey area than we are and he identified the greay area behaviour as essential to consistent dominance.
I hope he is wrong.
He might have been at Florida, but given that Ohio is on probation and won't be out of the repeat offender window for at least another four years, I think he has no choice but to run a tighter ship now.
I just can't see hanging one's hat on head to head recruiting battles. Losing a couple guys to Hoke won't kill Meyer's recruiting classes. OSU will almost certainly have a top ten class, and if Meyer closes like he usually closes while Michigan loses a guy or two they could even finish with a higher ranked class. In any matter, having the # 2 class versus #5 or however it plays out isn't a huge difference in my eyes.
We do have Mattison, but you have to respect Meyer's track record for finding coordinators. On offense, they have Urban, just about the best in the biz. We have Al Borges, the quintessential pro-style retread.
I'm not saying I think Michigan will never beat OSU again, but it may not be soon, and I definitely don't believe it will be frequent. Sure, you're technically correct about the jury being out, but it's in about the same way the determination has yet to be made whether Raymon Taylor is of the same calibre as Charles Woodson.
Bo revived the standard, but Fielding Yost set the standard.
These are my goals (under current conditions):
1. Win the Leaders 5/10 years.
2. Win the B1G 3-4/10 years
3. Beat OSU 50%+ of the time. Bo did it. Mo did it. Lloyd was doing it until the wheels fell off the wagon from 2001- 2007. He should have retired two years earlier and kept the 50%+ streak going.
4. I'd include Notre Dame but they don't really matter anymore.
5. Beat MSU 70-80% of the time. UM only lost once in the 70's, twice in the 80's and three times in the 90's. Three losses should be the limit for any decade.
6. Play in NYD bowl games (Gator or better) in 7/10 seasons.
If you throw all of those things together, you're probably looking at primarily 9-3 or 10-2 regular seasons most of the time. I'll always "take" 11-1 or 12-0. Four losses are OK for "rebuilding" years. It's hard to call five or more losses a "good" season. 2012 was only the third times they've lost five or more games since the Bo era began (excluding the RR years) along with 1984 and 2005.
I agree, but I don't think it's unrealistic to expect one season every 10-15 years (or maybe 15-20 years) where everything comes together and we win the national championship. There were a few seasons where Bo was literally a handful of points away from a perfect season and a probable national championship ('88, '85, '80, '71).
I'd love to win X number of games and go to X bowl game X number of times and beat the rivals X number of times, but what I really would like to see is the team manhandle the teams that they should manhandle on a regular basis. I know "lesser" teams get fired up to play a big name like Michigan but I'd like to not have to stress out about a game against lesser opponents. (e.g. easily cover spreads) I don't need the extra stress from something that is supposed to be fun to watch.
Oh, and I'd love to see a player like Denard/Desmond/Woodson on the team on a regular basis - someone that makes you think magic can happen every time they touch the ball.
Being competitive nationally. I never cared about beating OSU or playing in the Rose Bowl; given the state of the B1G, that really isn't an accomplishment. But when UM can walk into a BCS bowl game against a top-notch team from a power conference and win, that's a great season. Beyond that, a generally good season is 9 wins, with a couple against quality opponents. I rather have a consistent winner with some peaks than the wild swings you see at places like Auburn, USC, etc. where you win 11 games one year and then crater the next couple.
I want Michigan to be one of the best teams in the country. A team that people watch and admire for its skill, quality, and dominance in an average game. It should be one of the leading programs every year, even in years where it's not the best.
A lot of people are talking about beating OSU and combining that with various other goals. Remember, OSU is good and a good OSU is good for us; 50% is a good number in a top rivalry, and I want Michigan-OSU to have national implications every year. That may mean we lose some OSU games when we have a great team, but in those seasons we still ought to be BCS bowl contenders or, at worst, Cap One/Outback Bowl winners. Say, 10-2, Cap One bowl, beat Texas A&M 35-24.
But that should be a "meh" year. Maybe not rebuilding, and in the top ten, but setting us up for a bigger season ahead.
Because Michigan should be a playoff contender every year.
This "win the B1G, make it to the Rose Bowl" stuff has to stop. That's pansy stuff. I know it's important to win the B1G and make it there, but the goal should be to WIN the Rose Bowl and WIN the national championship.
I don't know about you, but making the Rose Bowl wasn't good enough for me in 1986, or 1989, or 1991. It wasn't good enough for me in 1997 either, and I wasn't particularly happy with how the 2003, 2004, and 2006 seasons ended.
I want Michigan to be a winner.
More than 2 losses in a regular season is unacceptable, except for one rebuilding year every five years.
Beat OSU 50% of the time.
B1G championship game 50% of the time (if we're in OSU's division; quite possible to lose to them and still make the game).
Win the B1G championship game 2/3s of the time when we're there.
Playoff berth every 3 or 4 years. Win a national championship at least once in 10 years.
BCS Bowl (Rose or otherwise) 2/3s of the time.
... A lot more than we succeed. That might work for some, but not for me.
My definition for success involves a number of factors, but loosely speaking if we beat OSU, win a BCS bowl, or win the B1G the season is a success. Yes, 1-11 with an OSU win might be a success to me.
Without those we would need a major bowl win and a 10-win season for success.
My criteria for program success are a clean program with minimal off-field incidents and those that we do are handled appropriately, academic success for the players, and successful seasons 15 out of 20 years.
I would like to see someone fear our football team once again.
Is that too much to ask?
I want to go back to when teams lost to us before they even stepped on our field. We lost that mystique when we scheduled, and lost to, App. St. We will know that Hoke has accomplished what was asked of him when teams speak about our team with trepidation in their voice and fear in their hearts.
That is what I want to see.
Success is far too nebulous to be defined in such strict terms.
Michigan loses only one game all season, in conference play against Ohio.
Iowa goes undefeated, winning the division, as well the Big Ten Championship Game, earning a spot in the BCS National Championship Game.
This forces #3 ranked Michigan into the Rose Bowl, which we then win.
Would that season be considered a success?
We lost to Ohio. We didn't play in the Big Ten Championship Game, so we didn't win a conference title, but we still snuck into the Rose Bowl and won, finishing ranked 2nd in the polls.
I think most people would consider such a season a major success for the program, even if we didn't necessarily meet all of our goals.
Well I am expecting to win the national title every year, but I will set some more realistic expectations.
10+ wins every year
Beat 2 out of 3 of OSU, MSU, and ND (I am going to say Nebraska now since the ND series will be off for the relative future)
Play for the Big Ten title 2 or 3 times every 5 years
Win the Big Ten title 2 or 3 times every 5 years
Have 1 National Championship every 8-10 years
With the new playoff system hopefully we are in contention 3 times every 10 years
Also, I am expecting many more BCS games/Rose Bowl appearances then we have had in recent memory
Not too different from yours. Over the long term, winning 2/3 of non-cupcake games while graduating most of the players and avoiding scandals or other incidents that embarrass the school. Over any given season, it depends on the schedule and other circumstances such as injuries.
...I don't really care about wins so much. The most important things are program stability with high graduation rates and minimal embarrassing, off-field activities.
Given the number of people in college football who have a win-at-all-costs mentality, I'm just not even sure that it's worth expecting to compete with them when we all know the playing field is rarely level. And when you consider the risk of Colorado or Penn State style scandals, I don't feel it is worth the risk of creating expectations for wins and subsequently hero-worshipping those coaches & players who deliver on those expectations.
I know that I'm in the minority but if I learned anything from the recent years of Michigan football it's that a losing season is no the end of the world. The game is meant to be a fun, Saturday afternoon distraction and if one keeps a level head about things, then even the losing seasons can provide a pleasant bit of entertainment.
I'd also agree with those who suggested that we only have two uniforms. Maintaining traditions should also be considered a baseline of success. The more we lose such things, the easier it is to lose interest. And that, for more than any wins, would be a much greater failure.
Until the 2008 season, I felt that success would be a 10+ win season and a major bowl victory.
After 2008 and 2009, I felt that success would be a winning season and bowl appearance.
After 2010, I felt that success would be a 8+ wins and a bowl victory.
After 20111, I felt that success would be a Leaders Division championship and an appearance in a BCS or prestigious non-BCS bowl.
After this past season, I am more inclined to agree with the posters who want UM to regain its old mystique by dominating inferior competition and holding our own against elite national powers, irrespective of the actual record.
1. Absolute MUST - Win the B1G title outright, no flukes or doubt. (undefeated in conference play.
2. A Rose Bowl victory over USC, Stanford, Oregon or some WORTHY PAC-12 opponent.
3. A strong showing in the National Championship game, playing well.
4. Winning the National Championship game in decisive fashion over a favored SEC opponent.
Addendum - beating all of Michigan's biggest rivals in the same season is part of the mix.
For me its competing for big ten titles every year, winning the rose bowl maybe once every three years and contending for a national championship every year, and winning it once a decade would be nice. Obviously beating OSU and MSU as well, but I would like to be better than .500 in bowls
Lots of analytical explanations here. For me it's much simpler:
1974-2007 - felt good to be a Michigan Wolverine (I became a fan in 1974 at age nine)
2008-2010 - felt shitty to be a Michigan Wolverine
2011-2012 and beyond - again feels good to be a Michigan Wolverine
We don't have to cheat to get to the NCG. We already recruit as well as Auburn, LSU, Florida. Various teams who played in NCGs and won.
-Beating two out of three rivals each year (with an emphasis on OSU being the most important / I realize we are done playing ND for a bit coming up)
-Winning the big ten title
-Competing for a National Title on a consistant basis (probably the biggest area Michigan has failed in past decades although I still think Michigan got screwed a few times in the 1970s and would have easily won more than 1 NC since 1958 if there was a 4-team playoff)
1. Beating Ohio
2. 10+ wins
3. Playing in BCS Bowls
Compete for Big Ten titles every year.
Beat OSU. Not necessarily every year, but it should at least be a good game.
Compete for national titles on a regular basis. Maybe not every year, but be regularly in the mix.
Help remind Sparty that they should stick to basketball.
Leaders both on and off the field. Seriously, we need more men like Patrick Omameh.
Hoke leading this program the right way. No over signing, no negative recruiting, and reminding our players that the reason they are at Michigan is to get that diploma. If a player gets to the NFL, that's fantastic, and we should all be proud of him. But that's not the main reason of why you go to Michigan. In my opinion.
Never potentially sacrifice the integrity of our program just for W's. If winning is that important to Hoke (hypothetically speaking, of course), he should not be coaching at Michigan.
The B1G titie is more of an afterthought to me. When you say "the leaders and the best," you're forcing a comparison with, well, pretty much everyone.
With that in mind, I'd say the goal should be to have a perfect season and win the national championship. Win the B1G, but lose to Notre Dame? No thanks, not good enough for me. You have to beat the primary rival, which will always be Ohio (Yes, that Ohio), not Sparty. After the Ohio State game, beating Notre Dame is the next most important game on the sked, regardless of the fact that it doesn't impact the B1G.
What's the definition of an ideal season in our lifetimes? '97 was obviously the best. After that, I'm really tempted to say '99, even though we lost to Sparty. Comeback wins over Ohio, Notre Dame, Penn State and Alabama, with our team nationally recognized. In '96, the college football world was howling with cries that "the Block M stands for mediocrity." By '99, those claims had been silenced. A 3-season record of 32-5, highlighted by a national title, three bowl victories and winning 3-season records against all major rivals will tend to do that for you.
game more than Wisconsin, basically a regular at the game. Beat Ohio at least at a 50% rate, at least enough for Ohio fans to know if they come to A2 in Nov it will be a long sad ride home. Also if I may? I would want to be in the talk of future MNCG every year, I would like to play in the MNCG 1 in 6 yrs. Win a MNCG within next 5 years. Win a real NC playoff championship become the undisputed NC for that year then I can die. GO BLUE!
Reclaiming our part in the Big 2, Little 10 (or 12 or 14) status again. Winning our share of B1G titles and when we do, belonging in the playoffs. Not being afraid of a mobile quarterback on the other team. Never showing up to a game with no hope of winning. Doing it with more class and integrity than any other major program.
It really depends on what timeframe you're talking about. Over a ten-year period, success to me means a 9-3 average, with a couple of years being a national title contender.
How often has that ever been a part of UM football? That explains a TON about your posting. In the past 20 yrs there's maybe 8-10 teams in the country that fit that profile
Success is when you look at the schedule every week and legitimately think Michigan should win. The few times they lose it should be because the opponent that week played their perfect game. That is the Michigan standard of success. Always has been, always should be.
Beat Ohio, playoffs every other year.
Basically Alabama but without all the dirt.
I won't accept anything less
So you think we are at the point where we can challenge our main objective of winning the B10? I say this because it gives me pause that our objective is to win the B10, and not necessarily the NC. Don't get me wrong, winning the B10 is an achievement, but its not even close compared to a NC. You can't tell me that you wouldn't be disappointed in a season that we lost all our non-conference games, but won the B10.
Times have changed and Bo's mantra of winning B10 championships as our main goal should be put to rest. This is Michigan fergodsakes, he should be shooting for NCs. Plain and simple.
Yeah, but you can't win the NC if you don't win the B1G Championship. You can control winning the B1G Championship, but not necessarily the NC, though with the playoff it is moreso.
Hot cheerleaders and rawk muzik
Michigan has the biggest stadium and possibly the best resources in college football. There is no excuse for them not being a team that plays for the National Championship at least once every five years. That is one "slot" out of ten. Any team that calls themselves the "leaders and best" should be able to get one out of those ten slots in a five year period.
If Ohio gets to the NC game using the spread next year, it's going to be time for the "old school" people who dominate the decision-making process involving sports at the University of Michigan to re-evaluate their insistence on using a 20th century offense in the 21st century.
When Bo had his great years, the option was a "modern" offense. That was the last time Michigan was ahead of or even with the curve on offense. Oregon, ND, and Ohio are proving that the spread works "up north" and that it's possible to reach the NC game with it. Ohio didn't reach it in Meyer's first year, but they did go undefeated.
David Brandon has no problem trampling on tradition when it means he is going to make more money, but seems to insist on an anachronistic offense for the Wolverines. If he wants to actually put his money where his mouth is, he needs to tell Hoke and Borges that it's time for Michigan to join the 21st century on the offensive side of the ball.
Brady Hoke does a great job of motivating and recruiting, and has as much integrity as anyone in the game right now. He delegates his offense, and can delegate a spread offense as well as he can a more traditional one. Al Borges could learn the spread in two months, and could combine it with his WCO principles. It would look similar to the "Run and Shoot," which did create a lot of space for Barry Sanders in Detroit.
If Brady Hoke wants to transcend the 3.5 loss average of the "Michigan coaching tree" and actually win some of those championships they talk about on State Street, he is going to have to incorporate the spread into the offense. He just has to get permission from David Brandon.
I hope permission is forthcoming.
Win B1G and play in the Rose Bowl (or MNC bowl du jour) = success
Anything else is not a successful season at UofM.
I am not irrational enough to think we should have success every season, but that is success defined.