Will Michigan be Ranked After Bowl Win?
After the dust settles from our impressive win at the Gator Bowl what are the chances we'll be ranked. It looks like 2-5 of the fringe teams will likely drop out of the top 25.
It sure would be nice to finish the season in the top 25 and make Bruce Feldman's preseason prediction come true.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
over squeezing into #25 in the polls
December 29th, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
Are we being offered a choice between the two?.
December 29th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
Is that close to our projected class rank?
December 29th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
Success breeds success.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
If they win by around 21 points, I'd have to say yes.
December 29th, 2010 at 10:23 PM ^
Ted and TPryor should settle their differences in a "Loathsome OSU vs. Loathsome UM Alumni" steel cage match.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
8-5 Iowa beating #14 Mizzo will be ranked before UM.
8-5 Florida (maybe even 8-5 Penn State) would be ranked before UM.
Then you have the non-BCS love for S.D. State and/or Tulsa slipping into the rankings after their bowl victories and better than 8-5 records.
Slim to None.
December 29th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
None. We got bombed the previous two weeks.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^
Not very good I think. But could a comfortable win maybe help us get ranked in the pre-season our early season polls(assuming early wins) ?
December 29th, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^
Assuming things stay fairly steady (players/recruits stay on board, regardless of CC decision), I would imagine a 2011 Preseason ranking, but wouldn't expect a 2010 End of Year Ranking unless Michigan thoroughly spanks the Bulldogs
December 29th, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^
We could win by 30 points, and all the other Big 10 teams plus UConn and Notre Dame could win, and we still wouldn't be ranked. We would still have 5 double-digit losses and no signature wins. Miss St is ok, but they weren't competitive with most of the top teams in their league.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
Agree, chances of being ranked are near zero. But let's not sell MSU short. They only lost by 3 to Auburn, and took Arkansas to 2 OTs. They're a pretty solid SEC team. Not quite elite SEC, but solid none the less.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
They were competitive with Auburn and Ark, but got hammered by LSU and Alabama.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
Yeah Auburn looked dominant in their 3 point win and Arkansas sure did crush them in OT.
December 29th, 2010 at 8:38 PM ^
Well, heck, call me old fashioned, but if UConn beats OU in a BCS game, I'd say that would count as a signature win.
But to answer the OP, almost certainly not.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
What matters is a win and good start to 2011....Bowl win and good signing day in February would be far better and far more indicative of returning to our former success before 2007's The Horror than anything to do with top 25. Just win and sign a great 2011 class!
December 29th, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^
Afraid not. MSU will have been the only good team we'd beaten all year. And, unfortunately, the world doesn't really care about MSU.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:25 PM ^
Hey! We beat the BCS bound UCONN Huskies! /s
December 29th, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
And we know all to well how "the world" will love an 8-5 Notre Dame team fresh off a 4 game winning streak and destined for a Top 15 ranking in 2011.
December 29th, 2010 at 11:02 PM ^
They'll fall off the map.
edit: My 1000th MGoPoint, I love it.
December 29th, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
That would make four bowl teams:
- UConn, who won the Big East (which is, I guess, still a conference)
- @ Notre Dame, who finished 7-5 with wins over Utah, Pitt, and USC
- Illinois, who was a decent, if uninspiring, team this year
- Mississippi State
Murderer's Row it ain't... but there are some decent wins there. I don't think it's enough to get Michigan ranked, but I think it would be enough for a pre-season Top 25 spot for next year.
December 29th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^
That and seeing who is returning next season in addition to the favorable schedule. I see us being in the top 25, especially because of Denard and the offense.
December 29th, 2010 at 3:04 PM ^
CC - how could you fire RR after an 8-5 season, 3 losses to 11-1 teams, a top 10 offense, and a potential Heisman winner next year?
Sorry had to throw that out there.......
December 29th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^
1) 8-5 in your third year isn't exactly awe-inspiring. Not terrible, but not good either.
2) 3 losses to 11-1 teams: He had three 11-1 teams on his schedule, and got absolutely crushed by all of them, how is that supposed to be a selling point for him to stay? Not to mention MSU is the most fraudulent 11-1 team in a long long time. There are a large number of teams with lesser records, including 9-3 Alabama, who are much better than 11-1 MSU.
3) The "top 10 offense" has already been covered. Wisconsin, Ohio State, MSU, Penn St, and Iowa all shut down the offense until the game was essentially over. The offense hung a ton of points on awful teams, and got shut down by the above average ones. Was the offense good? Yes. Top 10 in the country? No.
4) How does Denard even factor into this? Sure he is a great player; is bringing in a great player to a program that is easy to recruit at supposed to be something spectacular? And overall on the recruiting front Rich Rod has actually been quite sub-par.
Rethink whether or not you had to throw that out there.
December 29th, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
8-5 in your third year isn't exactly awe-inspiring. Not terrible, but not good either.
OK, let's say your statement is correct. That's exactly what Harbaugh's third-season record was at Stanford. So why change when RR could go 11-1 and make the BTC game next season with the expected improvement on offense and minimal improvement on defense?
December 29th, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^
8-5 is pretty damn good at Stanford given their stringent academic standards and lack of resources/fan interest. At Michigan, 8-5 in your third year is not nearly as impressive.
Also, Harbaugh only lost 1 game by double digits (10 pt loss) that year. 10 points was Rich Rod's closest loss. Harbaugh's 5 losses were by a combined 32 points, Rich Rod's are by a combined 87 points, and it would be worse if opponents chose to run up the score. Harbaugh also beat a very strong Oregon team that year and a 9-4 USC team. He also beat a very good USC team in his 1st year.
Harbaugh beat more quality teams in his 1st year than Rich Rod has in 3 years, had far less embarrassing losses each year, and had an equal record in his 3rd year, all while at a program where it is MUCH more difficult to build a good team. Can people like you please, for the love of God, stop pretending what Harbaugh did at Stanford is the equivalent of what Rich Rod has done at Michigan... It's ridiculous
December 29th, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^
a response to your question: Harbaugh's climb to 8 wins included two victories over USC. Also the ascent began at the absolute nadir. Stanford won 1 game the year before he took over. What's more, his losses in his 8-5 2008 season were relatively competitive compared to some of UofM's losses this year.
I'm guessing if the previous M staff had averaged 3-4 wins in the seasons prior to RR's hiring (and 1 W the immediate year before), and that Michigan had beaten the equivalent of a USC two times along the way (maybe even just 1 win over OSU), and that a 2010 8-5 campaign included compettive losses to Wisconsin, OSU, MSU and Penn State, we'd have no CC threads.
For the record, I'm fine with either at the helm as I think they both can get M to where we all want the program. I'm excited about 2011 and 2012 either way.
I have a gut that even if RR is retained and wins a ton of games the next couple of years, there will still be people who want him gone. If true, that will be sad. But I also was sad when fans were calling for Lloyd's head. Nature of the beast.
December 29th, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^
1) I agree, however we are trending upward. Not as fast as I'd like, and the starting point was less than stellar, but there HAS been progress. Keep in mind that Michigan has had terrible injury luck, even for a Big Ten that seemed pretty injury prone this year. It's not quantifiable, but it is a very real argument, it counts for something.
2) No argument here. Me and 10 of my closest friends could all suit up and get destroyed by an 11-1 team.
3) The top 10 offense was never truly shut down (by anybody but itself). Unforced errors, such as picks, fumbles, drops, and penalties slowed our offense down, and it still turned in huge chunks of yardage in most of those games. It was pure agony to watch as we drove down the field only to turn the ball over in the red zone. The coaching staff has been forced into playing young players. However, I cannot completely discount the turnover margin, as it's been bad every year RR has been here. I've never seen anything like it.
4) Denard doesn't factor into recruing, as nobody was battling us to have him as a QB. However, since when did piecing together above average classes while being nuetered for 3 years by multiple problems stop being appreciated? This man has been the victim of the most vicious smear campaign this side of the birthers. Quite sub par? In one year, he got verbals from 4 of the top quarterbacks in the nation (kinda). This year, despite his job status, he has two of the top running backs (kinda). His defensive picks haven't panned out that well, but given what he had to work with, I think you're creating a false impression about him having sub par classes.
December 29th, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^
1. & 1.) 8-5 with your 1st recruiting class as true sophomores in a stacked Big 10 where there were 3 11-1 teams. Pretty damn good as true sophomores. RR has 2 recruiting classes. which equals True Sophomores, Redshirt Freshman, or True Freshman.
2.) The Big 10 was the best conference this year by far. To have that many freshman and sophomores playing at that high of level is an accomplishment in itself. To compete at the next level ( Big 10 Championships) You shouldnt have any Freshman playing, maybe 1 or 2 at the most and mix in the Sophomores. Your starters should all be Seniors and Juniors. You should not see the field as a true freshman, unless your a 4 or 5 star stud. There is a huge difference between 18 year olds to 21 or 22 year olds. Think how good this team will be next year and in 2012, with all that experience? This season is a stepping stone for greatness.
3.) This is the best offense this program has ever seen #'s wise. Imagine how much better this offense is going to be. They are only gonna get better. Especially with the mistakes and turnovers. Mix that in with a some what good defense, it only means we will be getting the ball even more. Once again it comes back to the experience thing. We want Juniors and Seniors on the field and this young players did a hell of a job competing with the more experienced teams.
4.) Denard will be a Heisman contender next year, putting up 2500/1500 #'s. How doesnt that spot light help this program? Having the top players in the Ncaa only attracts top recruits and puts a positive light on the program.
I dont need to rethink shit...Bring in Harbaugh and you start back from scratch.December 29th, 2010 at 7:18 PM ^
we were 3-5.. with those 3 great wins coming against Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois. You remember the Indiana and Illinois games don't you? Not the most impressive wins. 3-5..6-18 ..any way you slice it..RR hasn't done a dam thing in the bigten. You said this season was a stepping stone to greatness..what are you basing that on? You dont even know who our defensive coordinator will be next year. defense and special teams have gotten worse eac h year...every year we say it cant get worse.
December 29th, 2010 at 8:25 PM ^
Are you high? This offense couldn't score against MSU, PSU, Iowa, OSU or Wisconsin until it didn't matter. This offense racks up yards, but not points against quality competition.
I like the explosive potential of this offense as much as anyone, but it was weak against better competition. We racked up all those numbers against Illinois and Indiana in the conference.
My measuring stick is we could have lost all three of the conference games we won if a couple of things didn't happen. We still would have lost all the conference games we lost even if a couple of things went the other way. We weren't even in those games in the first half.
December 30th, 2010 at 2:32 AM ^
Dude step away from the kool-aid... wow.
Your last statement is the most annoying argument of all. Just because Rich Rod turned Michigan into a rebuilding project because he is so in love with his "scheme", doesn't mean Harbaugh would do the same. Harbaugh is a good football coach, not a scheme coach. He would take the talent he has and make the most of it, and I'd be willing to bet that our turnover margin would improve drastically under Harbaugh after the past 3 years of turnover-mania. RR couldn't find a way to make Mallet, Minor, and others fit into his offense, but I guarantee you Harbaugh would/will fit Denard into his.
December 29th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^
Welcome back! How was your month long vacation?
December 29th, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^
but i really could care less if we're ranked considering the multitude of other important things that will be happening after the bowl game
December 29th, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^
December 29th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
and not worry about rankings.
December 29th, 2010 at 4:27 PM ^
No. We won't be ranked. 5 loss teams don't deserve to be ranked anyway.
Just win. Another victory over yet another SEC opponent would be good enough this year.
December 29th, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^
If we squeak by in a narrow victory, I doubt we'll be ranked regardless what happens elsewhere.
If we pound MSU something like 42-17 and If a bunch of teams ahead of us lose, then I would bet we'll end up right around 25.
Given MSU's defense, I don't see any way we'll go all Baby Seal on them. If our defense plays like the way it did during the regular season, then we'll be fortunate to win at all, in fact. That would be depressing as hell, but I guess it could make Brandon's decision easier, if he hasn't made it already.
December 29th, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^
Teams ahead of UM (according to the AP poll) that have already lost: Fresno St, Navy (both of those in other's receiving votes), Hawaii #24, WVU #22 and Utah #20. Missouri lost but with a final record of 10-3 they'll still be in the Top 25.
Teams ahead of UM that have won: Air Force, Iowa, NC State, SDSU, N Illinois, Tulsa and Maryland appears on their way to winning - all are in others receiving votes.
December 29th, 2010 at 4:48 PM ^
ND has a better chance than UM, and thats unlikely on its own
December 29th, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^
I would sure like to know why Charlie couldnt make it at ND. His offense he has put together in KC is smooth as silk (with a healthy Cassel). It is amazing how quickly everyone forgot why ND wanted him in the first place. Its just like how everyone quickly forgot that RR was one of or arguably the hottest coach in college football when UM came calling. Fickle fans....
December 29th, 2010 at 5:37 PM ^
Weis is better with mature players, development of raw players wasn't something he got the hang of in time. The 3-9 season was equal parts true freshman starters as it was freshman coaches trying to figure out what to do. To his credit he never stopped fighting to do better but try isn't something that can save your job, only results do.
December 29th, 2010 at 6:06 PM ^
Don't care if we are ranked or not
Just want a win and RR back next season
December 29th, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
If we did that we'd be ranked top 10 if we win, 15-25 if we lost...
December 29th, 2010 at 11:05 PM ^
I don't really care about the ranking.