A Complete History of Michigan in Preseason Polls

A Complete History of Michigan in Preseason Polls

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on August 2nd, 2012 at 3:55 PM

[ed-S: Bumped like an Elliott]

With the polls released today, let's take a look back on Michigan's history in being ranked in the preseason. Interesting note, 40 years ago in 1972, Michigan was ranked #8 in the preseason by the coaches poll and won the Big Ten Championship.

                             AP                 Coaches            Final Record
1950                      3 (3)                   7                             6-3-1
1951                     17                       9                             4-5-0
1952                     NR                     NR                           5-4-0
1953                     NR                     NR                           6-3-0
1954                     NR                     20                            6-3-0
1955                     NR                     NR                           7-2-0
1956                      8 (2)                  12                            7-2-0
1957                      6 (3)                   7                             5-3-1
1958                     NR                     NR                           2-6-1
1959                     NR                     NR                           4-5-0
1960                     NR                     NR                           5-4-0
1961                     NR                     NR                           6-3-0
1962                     NR                     NR                           2-7-0
1963                     NR                     NR                           3-4-2
1964                     NR                     NR                           9-1-0
1965                      4 (5)                   4                             4-6-0
1966                     NR                     NR                           6-4-0
1967                     NR                     NR                           4-6-0
1968                     NR                     NR                           8-2-0
1969                     NR                     12                            8-3-0
1970                      8                        9                             9-1-0
1971                      4 (1)                   9                           11-1-0
1972                      6                        8                          10-1-0
1973                      5 (2)                   6                         10-0-1
1974                      6 (1)                   6                           10-1-0
1975                      3 (1)                   3                            8-2-2
1976                      2 (10)                 8                           10-2-0
1977                      2 (19)                 3                           10-2-0
1978                      6                        9                           10-2-0
1979                      7                        5                             8-4-0
1980                     12                      18                          10-2-0
1981                      1 (38)                 4                            9-3-0
1982                     12                      12                           8-4-0
1983                     10 (1)                 NR                          9-3-0
1984                     14 (1)                  8                            6-6-0
1985                     NR                     NR                        10-1-1
1986                      2 (6)                   2                          11-2-0
1987                      7                        8                            8-4-0
1988                     11 (1)                 19                           9-2-1
1989                      1 (23)                 4                          10-2-0
1990                      6                        7                            9-3-0
1991                      2 (5)                   7                          10-2-0
1992                      6 (1)                   6                            9-0-3
1993                      3 (3)                   5                            8-4-0
1994                      5 (2)                  21                           8-4-0
1995                     14                      12                            9-4
1996                     14                      17                            8-4
1997                     14                      20                           12-0
1998                      5 (4)                   1                            10-3
1999                      8                       12                           10-2
2000                      6                        5                             9-3
2001                     12                      11                            8-4
2002                     12                      20                           10-3
2003                      4 (2)                   9                           10-3
2004                      8                        6                             9-3
2005                      4                       14                            7-5
2006                     14                      NR                         11-2
2007                      5                        8                             9-4
2008                     NR                     18                            3-9
2009                     NR                     NR                           5-7
2010                     NR                     NR                           7-6
2011                     NR                     NR                         11-2
2012                                                8           

Still Choppin and other "popular" college theme songs

Still Choppin and other "popular" college theme songs

Submitted by Blazefire on August 2nd, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Just a little bit of relief for your sore pride, folks. We may not be pleased with "In the Big House", which unfortunately is coming to a godzillatron near you soon, but we can no longer be singled out for that.

It all started, of course, with "We are ND".

Then of course, there were classics like LSU's and many others.

Now comes an official FSU production, Bane - Still Choppin

So at least we've got ever increasing company. I maintain that it all starts when you let Big & Rich get involved. It's downhill from there.

Jerry Palm: Rose Bowl for Michigan

Jerry Palm: Rose Bowl for Michigan

Submitted by Soulfire21 on August 2nd, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Jerry Palm released his 2012-2013 bowl projections that include Michigan (Big Ten Champ) facing Oregon (Pac-12 # 2, USC gets picked for the MNCG).

Obligatory statement about the utter ridiculousness of predicting bowl games before a single game of the season has been played?  Check.

The reason I bring this up (as opposed to other prognosticators) is that last year around this time, he had Michigan in a BCS bowl (the Fiesta) and most people were taken aback at his "silly" (but not so silly looking back on it) faith in Michigan.

And it's not just that he correctly predicted Michigan into a BCS bowl, he also predicted Michigan's losses to MSU and Iowa.

At the very least, it's nice to see us in the conversation for high-profile bowls, championships, etc.  You know, how it should be.

"How Big Is The Big Ten?" - Position Analysis - Offense

"How Big Is The Big Ten?" - Position Analysis - Offense

Submitted by LSAClassOf2000 on August 2nd, 2012 at 12:10 PM

POSITION ANALYSIS: OFFENSE

HEIGHT AND WEIGHT COMPARISONS ACROSS BIG TEN IN 2012

 

INTRODUCTION:

Arising from a discussion regarding the size of our own players, I decided to embark on a conference-wide comparison of players on both sides of the ball. I already had much of the data that was required from a previous diary entry, but in order to expand on the concept, I needed to get depth charts and two-deeps.

 

SOME STUFF ON THE METHOD:

For purposes of simplicity and to show approximately what teams may feature in a starting capacity in games, I opted to go with the two-deep comparison.  As it turns out, two-deeps in the Big Ten are fairly easy to find, so this did not take long at all. I tried to use the most current data available in terms of the two-deeps – not every team is in the habit of updating their sites regularly, but there is enough current data to get good results, I believe.

Next, I had to delve into the schemes and nomenclatures used by teams and find a way to put them into tables without losing too much of the descriptive aspect of this analysis. I found a simple way to do this on Rivals.com, oddly enough, which formats their two-deeps as an 11-man unit, and this served as a basis for organizing the tables. Because much of Rivals data is not as current as other sources when it came to two-deep data, I searched and found the individual depth charts.

 I have, for example, turned offensive tackle and offensive guard into a category – some teams differentiate RT, RG, LT, LG, and some do not. I did, however, find enough data on centers to keep this one separate.

For receivers, tight ends and back, I was able to get enough on schemes that I could differentiate them within the tables (i.e., sort of illustrate different combinations of rushers / receivers rather than collapse them into still larger categories).  As you will see in the tables, there is an alternate position in some rows. For example, “WR / TE” – the first one will be the “default” position for each team in that table. Where a team uses another player in another role, the corresponding height or weight will be emboldened and italicized. I believe this also gives some insight into how different teams and their prevailing formations compare. There is admittedly some redundancy – “FB” is in two rows, for example – but again, an effort was made to simplify with losing too much transparency.

 Some teams, for example, utilize halfbacks, tailbacks and fullbacks, and others line up three wide receivers, and others still use some combination of all of them. Using a similar base organization as Rivals, I was able to come up with what I believe is a good (albeit simplified) visualization of the variation across teams.

After all  this, it was merely a matter of average the appropriate player data by position or position group for each team. If this is sound (and I do welcome feedback), I will do something analogous for defensive positions.

 

TABLES:

The compiled tables are below –

 

OFFENSE - LEGENDS DIVISION AVG. HEIGHT (INCHES) IN TWO-DEEP

Position

Michigan

MSU

Iowa

Minnesota

Nebraska

Northwestern

QB

73.0

75.5

75.0

77.0

73.0

72.5

RB / TB

68.0

72.5

70.0

71.5

70.0

70.0

FB / WR

72.0

72.0

72.5

74.0

74.0

74.5

WR

72.5

73.5

73.5

69.5

74.0

71.5

WR / FB

69.0

72.0

75.0

74.0

71.5

70.0

TE / HB

76.5

77.0

77.0

76.0

76.5

76.0

OT

78.8

77.8

78.3

78.3

78.5

78.5

OG

75.5

74.3

76.5

75.3

76.5

77.0

C

75.5

76.0

74.5

75.5

73.5

76.0

OFFENSE - LEGENDS DIVISION AVG. WEIGHT IN TWO-DEEP

Position

Michigan

MSU

Iowa

Minnesota

Nebraska

Northwestern

QB

200.0

206.0

206.0

233.0

200.0

200.0

RB / TB

183.5

229.5

197.5

210.0

195.0

210.0

FB / WR

229.5

247.5

235.0

194.5

195.0

205.0

WR

191.5

200.0

202.5

177.5

202.5

195.0

WR / FB

178.5

194.0

202.5

237.5

182.5

185.0

TE / HB

244.5

268.0

247.5

250.0

242.5

260.0

OT

299.0

310.8

298.5

295.3

311.3

307.5

OG

309.5

298.8

288.3

303.8

303.8

302.5

C

277.5

285.0

274.0

293.0

275.0

297.5

 

 

 

OFFENSE - LEADERS DIVISION AVG. HEIGHT (INCHES) IN TWO-DEEP

Position

Illinois

Indiana

Ohio

Penn State

Purdue

Wisconsin

QB

73.5

73.0

74.0

74.0

75.0

76.0

RB / TB

70.0

71.0

70.5

69.9

70.0

70.5

FB / WR

73.5

75.5

74.0

75.0

71.0

73.5

WR

71.5

74.5

71.5

69.5

71.0

73.5

WR / FB

73.5

70.5

73.5

74.5

71.0

74.5

TE / HB

76.5

77.0

77.0

77.0

76.0

76.0

OT

77.0

77.5

78.8

77.5

77.8

79.0

OG

76.5

75.0

76.3

75.8

76.5

77.8

C

77.5

74.0

74.5

73.5

76.0

76.0

OFFENSE - LEADERS DIVISION AVG. WEIGHT IN TWO-DEEP

Position

Illinois

Indiana

Ohio

Penn State

Purdue

Wisconsin

QB

200.0

187.0

208.0

206.5

217.5

218.0

RB / TB

212.5

205.5

216.5

197.5

189.0

204.5

FB / WR

250.0

211.5

245.5

202.0

175.0

233.0

WR

175.0

202.0

191.5

170.0

175.0

187.0

WR / FB

190.0

183.5

194.5

210.5

180.0

212.0

TE / HB

240.0

262.5

246.0

262.5

247.5

251.0

OT

296.3

290.0

303.8

293.8

271.8

323.0

OG

313.8

287.8

308.0

293.0

269.3

318.3

C

292.5

276.5

287.5

296.5

303.0

308.0

 

A COUPLE OBSERVATIONS:

One thing that I struck me immediately – at least when it comes to formations – is the differences you see if, for example, you swap  out a wide receiver for a fullback, and how little things like this do markedly change the size composition of the offense.  It also seems to say a little about what aspect of the offensive game teams tend to lean on, in my opinion.

Save for some notable instances, there actually is not a huge amount of variation across most teams at most positions. Purdue’s OTs and OGs seem undersized to me, given the data, especially when you look at the team right next to them in the table – Wisconsin.  That being said, a few inches and a few dozen pounds seem to make quite a bit of difference on the field, so while statistically, many of these are close, coached scheme, conditioning and other factors can make these little differences seem big.

 

CONCLUSION:

As I have never embarked on something quite like this before, I encourage feedback since I plan to have a defensive version of this ready later in the month and would like to hear suggestions on how to improve this. If there is any additional information that the board would like, I can do my best to answer any questions as well.

 

Mattison plans to retire here, Borges thinks he'll stick around too; and Lloyd thought last year was good & stuff

Mattison plans to retire here, Borges thinks he'll stick around too; and Lloyd thought last year was good & stuff

Submitted by M-Wolverine on August 2nd, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Not shocking news, but from the horse's mouth Mattison plans on retiring here.

http://annarbor.com/sports/um-football/dc-greg-mattison-says-hell-finis…

More interesting is that even though he knows he's getting up there, he hasn't lost his love (came back from his vacation early to watch film), and doesn't have a set age, just as long as his health lets him (because he can't see himself doing anything else).

Borges doesn't completely close the door on a great opportunity opening up for himself, but isn't looking and sounds like he'd be very satisfied with his career ending here.

AA.com also gives a summary of a Lloyd radio interview. Obviously thinks Hoke did a tremendous job last year in a lot of facets, and expects him to keep it up in the future. He likes his coaching staff.

http://annarbor.com/sports/um-football/ex-coach-lloyd-carr-discusses-mi…

Mostly boilerplate, but football stuff in any regard.

AA.com: Frank Clark Waives Preliminary Exam; Pre-Trial Hearing Set for Sept. 11th

AA.com: Frank Clark Waives Preliminary Exam; Pre-Trial Hearing Set for Sept. 11th

Submitted by LSA Aught One on August 2nd, 2012 at 11:17 AM

http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/suspended-michigan-de-frank-clark-waives-preliminary-exam-due-back-in-court-sept-11/

 

Basically says that he said nothing and waived the preliminary exam.  The pre-trial hearing is on Sept 11th.  The judge issued a no-contact order with an unspecified male who is likely the owner of the laptop. 

52% of PSU households call NCAA sanctions too severe

52% of PSU households call NCAA sanctions too severe

Submitted by BlueinDC on August 2nd, 2012 at 10:00 AM

 

 

A Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll found that over half of Pennsylvania households that include either a Penn State graduate or a member of the family who attends the school believe the NCAA sanctions against the school are too severe.
 
Fifty-two percent of PA households affiliated with the university said the penalties against the school were too severe. Thirty-two percent of Penn State households said the penalties were appropriate, while 12 percent said they weren't severe enough.
 
(As a point of reference, a "Penn State household" was defined for the purposes of this survey as individuals from a household that said that they, or anyone in their family, had graduated from Penn State -- or, alternatively, anyone who said an individual in their family was currently attending the school. Twenty-four percent of Pennsylvanians said they or someone in their family had graduated from PSU; 6 percent of respondents said a member of their family was currently attending Penn State.)
 
Overall, 44 percent of all Pennsylvania adults called the penalties too severe, versus 33 percent who call the sanctions appropriate, and 14 percent who call them insufficient.
 
Among Pennsylvanians who have children under the age of 18, 41 percent called the NCAA sanctions appropriate, 40 percent called them too severe and 13 percent said they were not enough.