B1G Preseason Hype and Eventual Results

Submitted by los on July 20th, 2011 at 12:07 PM

On ESPN. Chart demonstrates what were voters' expectations concerning the eventual B1G Champion each year and the actual results. Michigan was Top 3 in the League from 1996 to 2007. The last 3 years, as we know, have been uncharacteristic for our program. Nevertheless, this should disclaim the unfounded argument that we haven't put quality teams on the field for longer than that 3 year span. If nothing else, Chart's interesting to look at on a slow day... 



Oh yeah, and Riddell thinks Oklahoma is in the B1G:




July 20th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^

M typically had a hard time living up to it's preseason expectations and talent level, 2007 come to mind...also 2005.

Ohio State is 5 -1 in the favorite position, Michigan is 2 - 3.

Going back to the pre-RR era level of success would be a welcome improvement, question is whether that is good enough or not.


July 20th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^

I can't bitch about 1997 - 2003, really; 2004 was when my spidey sense started tingling. My only complaint of the "good times" were all those Goddamned September losses to inferior competition. Typically rated top 10 in September only to poop the bed because "it's so hot on the west coast" or because "the field had a larger crown" ... ack.

So much for not bitching...


July 20th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^

I find interesting that the only Michigan team pre Rich Rod to not be pre season top 2 was 1997 (they were 3 but still). Penn state was supposed to be awesome that year, IIRC (not that I wasn't 7 then...).


July 20th, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^

I was 17 but I remember Penn State was getting much hype.  They were #2 in the nation for quite a while (and Beano Cook was slobbering over them even more than usual) but they dropped after they barely escaped Minnesota 16-15.

As far as the conference hype in preseason pre-RichRod, ours was justified.  Between 1997 and 2007, we never finished lower than 2nd in in the Big Ten.  All except the 2005 season, the year of never ending injuries. 



July 20th, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^

So...because media figures believe we were in the preseason top 3 for the Big Ten Champion, that means we were fielding good teams, or more appropriately we weren't fielding bad teams? I don't think anyone would say we were ever a bad team in the stretch between 1996-2007. You are looking at the wrong stat. Looking at that stretch we were the Big Ten Champion (including shared crowns) 5 times, second to TSIO's 6 times. No other team had more than 2. We currently have 68 players in the NFL (from Wikipedia which includes free agents), which is not a full list from 1996-2007 but has a lot of the players on there. I think we were a good team.

Take a look at the numbers again. In 2005, we were expected to be the Big Ten Champs. We finished tied for second, which at first glance wouldn't be too bad. But then one sees we were 7-5 and 5-3 in the Big Ten. That isn't very impressive. PSU and TSIO were tied for champs. So of the big three teams in the Big Ten, we were the worst of the three and did okay against the remainder of the lukewarm Big Ten competition.

If you look at the bowl record, minus Miss St, we are 6-7 from bowl games during that period. We have a -29 differential from that period. So when matched up with teams of similar caliber or records we have a sub 500 bowl record. Our overall bowl record is 19-21 (19-20 minus RR). Looking at the numbers it isn't that we weren't exactly fielding good teams. We just weren't fielding great ones. Someone started a thread last year asking what program was the most overrated program in the Big Ten. People were throwing out Wisco, Penn St, Iowa, or MSU. I remember after 8 or so posts someone goes: it is probably UofM and then the whole thread exploded with the OP yelling at the guy saying we are the winningest football team, we have tradition, we are consistently rated in the top 25 and among the top in the Big Ten, yada yada yada. Then the guy who mentioned UofM says, ya that is why were are the most overrated.

So point being we have been good, but not great and using that stat to say we have had good teams isn't really true. Also, probably shouldn't exclude the last three years when comparing us against other programs. Other programs make mishires and go through rough patches.

turd ferguson

July 20th, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but a ~.500 bowl record really isn't that damning. In theory at least, teams are matched with comparably good teams in their bowl games. Over a long period of time, everyone's bowl record should be around .500, and that's true whether you're a perennial title contender or a Motor City Bowl regular.
<br>In fact, a .500 record for a Big Ten team that typically has to travel south to play an SEC team or west to play a Pac 10 team - and often gets matched to a higher-finishing team from another conference - actually is quite good.


July 20th, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^

Ive been saying that for a whle. 

Let USC come to Detroit to play UM in the motor city bowl, instead of playing all their bowl games essentially at home, and see how they do. 

Let Auburn play their bowl game at Camp Randall or Kinnick, and see how those teams do when the bowl games are home games for us, instead of big 10 teams playing road games all the time. I'd love to have seen Wisconsin against some left coast team at the big house for a bowl game. Let them play in our environment.