Worst seven year stretches in Michigan history
For perspective
| Year | Win% | W | L | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| '57-63 | 46.03 | 27 | 32 | 4 |
| '58-64 | 50.78 | 31 | 30 | 3 |
| '56-62 | 50.79 | 31 | 30 | 2 |
| '61-67 | 52.24 | 34 | 31 | 2 |
| '59-65 | 52.31 | 33 | 30 | 2 |
| '08-14 | 52.38 | 44 | 40 | 0 |
So it could be worse..... I know it doesn't do much to lessen the blow. We have to lose out the rest of the season to move to #2 on the list
And yes the first ones are all overlapping, I count 57 wins with 55 losses/ties for a percent of 50.89
Information came from https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/2kc882/worst_seven_year_stretches…
Maybe this will help someone?
October 26th, 2014 at 4:30 AM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 4:32 AM ^
It helps in the same way saying the team also sucked under Rodriguez: not at all.
October 26th, 2014 at 4:33 AM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 8:08 AM ^
To be fair to the Lions, of course, there were a few years in the mid-90s where they kind of sort of seemed like they might put a type of run together, but then Fontes went 5-11 in 1996 and it sort of went downhill from there. There was also 1991 - oh so magical in comparison to most of the team's history. Otherwise, yeah, what you said.
October 26th, 2014 at 4:47 AM ^
make me long for the days of Bump Elliott
Bump was only 51-42-2 over the 95 games he coached Michigan, but, by all accounts I've ever read of him, he conducted himself with class and ran a solid, if not spectacular, program. He had a tough job to do when he became Head Coach, having to rebuild a program that had slipped badly under Bennie and gradually brought Michigan back to respectability, paving the way for Bo to really kick it up to being top-notch.
Hoke's record may be slightly better than that of Bump's and RichRod's, but the downward spiral we're seeing makes this the worst period ever, as far as I'm concerned.
October 26th, 2014 at 5:07 AM ^
Well, if paving the way for the next coach to have success is a positive, then I guess we can look at that aspect of Hoke's tenure as a positive. Barring a bunch of transfers, whoever is the next coach should at least have the players in place to be good.
October 26th, 2014 at 9:09 AM ^
Hoke has a remarkable record of keeping players in the program, so the next coach won't have to deal with the vast holes, unevenness, and youth in the roster that Hoke had to deal with. That's obviously good.
On the other hand, I worry that our player development has been such that our 4-star recruits are now effectively 3-star talents, our 3-star recruits are effectively 2-star talents, etc. And we have huge questions at QB, which is the worst place to have huge questions.
October 26th, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 9:56 AM ^
Speight was a "trust Borges" recruit, and as Brian pointed out a few months ago, Borges's record with QB recruiting is abysmal. Speight deserves a shot, though, and I am excited/curious to see how he competes with Morris for the job.
October 26th, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^
Should our current QB committ Malzone stay he could also be a candidate. Probably won't be ideal and hopefully the aforementioned Morris and Speight can be lightyears ahead but if there are three quarterbacks competing without an incumbent hopefully that makes for great competition which would yield a decent if not spectacular player. Of course we've been fostering great competition since the offseason and have been having great practices so maybe competition is overrated.
October 26th, 2014 at 5:07 AM ^
Well, if paving the way for the next coach to have success is a positive, then I guess we can look at that aspect of Hoke's tenure as a positive. Barring a bunch of transfers, whoever is the next coach should at least have the players in place to be good.
October 26th, 2014 at 8:27 AM ^
Bump, Chalmers to his parents, did win a Big Ten Championship and probably came within one play against Purdue of winning the National Championship. Bump also went 8-2 his last season.
October 26th, 2014 at 8:28 AM ^
Oosterbaan's winning percentage was .656 with three losing seasons out of eleven, and Elliott's was .548 with five losing seasons out of ten.
Bump "rebuilt" the UM program about as well as Hoke "rebuilt" the Ball State program.
October 26th, 2014 at 9:48 AM ^
poor choice of words on my part. To state it better, I should have said this: "that had slipped towards the end of Bennie's Michigan coaching career.", or something more along those lines.
Most (but not all) of Bennie's success was early on with Fritz Crisler's players, as he won his only NC in his first season (1948) and finished no worse than tied for 1st in the Big Ten each of the first 3 seasons, winning the Rose Bowl in '50.
From '51 forward, though, Michigan could only muster 2-2nd place finishes and ended up 4th or lower in the conference 5 times. The finals 2 seasons? 6th place and 8th place conference finishes, bottoming out at 1-5-1 (2-6-1 overall) in '58.
October 26th, 2014 at 10:25 AM ^
as you point out, his last two seasons were pretty bad. My point is that Bump's reclamation job was mediocre at best, with just two truly good seasons.
I realize this is semantics, but to me "rebuilding" is what Bo did here, or what Saban did at Alabama, or what Harbaugh did at Stanford. True "rebuilding" doesn't take six seasons, and clear progress is shown year on year, whether in wins and losses and/or in how the team plays, and how they do against their major rivals.
October 26th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^
that is funny that you say that, because Bump Elliot is the closest to Hoke in terms of achievement and ability as a head coach. Basically a true "michigan man" kind of hire that produced mediocre teams almost every year.
My dad was a big fan back then, and trust me, it is not an era to look back on fondly, quite similar to this era (alas).
October 26th, 2014 at 1:48 PM ^
That's exactly what I've been thinking for the last 12 months.
If Hoke coached here ten years, I think he'd have one or two really good years, when everything just went right, he had some exceptional players and assistants, the schedule was favorable, etc etc. but the majority of seasons would be like last year and this: constant derp.
Another similarity is that the only reason both Bump and Hoke ever got the Michigan job in the first place was their Michigan connection. Elliott was an assistant to Oosterbaan when he was chosen to replace him, and Hoke's only selling point was his former assistancy to Carr. If neither of those two had ever been assistants here, they wouldn't have gotten within sniffing distance of the HC position.
October 26th, 2014 at 5:58 AM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 6:36 AM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 6:50 AM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 7:18 AM ^
While the scholarship limitations have cut winning percentages at the top because the biggest programs can't stockpile talent they way they did in Bo and Woody's day (and earlier), scheduling changes have made .500 a much easier target for power-conference schools.
Michigan's non-conference schedules in that span:
- 1957: USC, Georgia
- 1958: USC, Navy
- 1959: Missouri, Oregon State
- 1960: Oregon, Duke
- 1961: UCLA, Army, Duke
- 1962: Nebraska, Army
- 1963: SMU, Navy
- 1964: Air Force, Navy
- 1965: North Carolina, California, Georgia
- 1966: Oregon State, California, North Carolina
- 1967: Duke, California, Navy
The strengths of those schools maybe aren't what you'd expect: Duke and Army and Navy were good, USC wasn't. But the point is that there's no EMU or Delaware State to be found. The worst team on the schedule in '63 was in the top 40 in the country. .500 then would be 5-7 now, at best.
October 26th, 2014 at 8:43 AM ^
They also only played 9-10 games during those stretches, with much reduced travel. Teams probably play tougher overall schedules now, but they don't have the 2-3 tomato cans each year (though historically bad in-conference teams like NW and Wisconsin helped somewhat).
October 26th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
Since the teams they played had exactly the same advantages of a shorter schedule and reduced travel, I don't see how that would make a winning record easier.
I mentioned the '63 schedule, where every team was top-40 (I'm using Massey)? This year's schedule only has four top-40 teams. 2011 was the same, so were 2008 and 2009.
And "historically bad...NW and Wisconsin" spent large chunks of that season ranked in the AP top ten. Illinois ended the season ranked AP #3 after winning the Rose Bowl; their only loss was an upset by Michigan. I don't think there was a bad team in the conference at the time. The big two and little eight didn't happen until the 70s. In the 11 seasons between '57 and '67 nine of the ten teams went to a Rose Bowl, everyone but NW (who themselves had what was, for them, a glory period under Parseghian).
October 26th, 2014 at 8:35 AM ^
The silver lining in that chart is that we have to look back decades for such a poor stretch, and the last time it happened Michigan hired a guy named Bo.
It sucks living through it now, but I have faith this program will turn itself around soon enough.
October 26th, 2014 at 9:11 AM ^
Bump Elliott was one of the least successful coaches in Michigan history. Under his guidance, Michigan lost a lot to Sparty and Brutus. The program was plagued by an inbred coaching tree. So, what was done? They went outside of the inbred coaching tree and found an outsider. Not only was he an outsider, but he was a disciple of the hated Woody Hayes. Some guy with a funny name: Bo Schembechler.
It's time to find another outsider. Today's "outsider"may be tomorrow's consummate "Michigan man."
October 26th, 2014 at 9:24 AM ^
Michigan man is not some genetic condition. It is earned by winning, integrity, work ethic, etc. Competent "outsiders" welcome.
October 26th, 2014 at 9:24 AM ^
I don't think losing out the rest of the season is going to be too tough of a task for Hoke. This coaching staff looked like they'd rather be anywhere else.
October 26th, 2014 at 12:15 PM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 9:49 AM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
October 26th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^
Yes I thought they gave it their best shot. Problem is their best shot isn't nearly enough to overcome a good team like Michigan State. The stake antics were pretty childish as well though Dantonio using it as some motivation and calling it out for the reason he retaliated is lowering himself to that level which could be expected of men 18-23 but not of 50 year old men.
My fear is that now the team will lose all hope because really there is nothing for which to play.
October 26th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
M's longest Big Ten title drought was 13 years, occurring from 1951 to 1963. Our current drought including this year is 10 years.
October 26th, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^
Basically we're seeing our football program at its lowest point in a generation. 1967 was the last time we lost to Sparty, Ohio and the Jug in the same season. Although the ND rivalry is more recent, we've never lost to the three rivals mentioned above and Notre Dame in the same season.
So while this stretch has been bad, this season may be the newest low point in the generation since Bo came to town.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 26th, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^
Here's why this stretch is worse, and not comparable to those earlier years: back in the 50s and 60s, we didn't start the season by playing OOC creampuffs who pad the W/L ratio. We played major conference teams out of conference.
Imagine this season's start if we played 4 major conference teams instead of two. We'd quite likely be 1-7.
October 26th, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^
Agree- Hoke is epic bad- he could easily have only one big 10 victory this year. Has that been done before?
October 26th, 2014 at 1:56 PM ^
believe this Michigan team is going to win a game the rest of the year?
October 26th, 2014 at 5:45 PM ^