Way too early 2013 College Football Rankings from Andy Staples
Since we had never too early bracketology post I figured I would post the way too early college football rankings from Staples.
He has us as at #12 only behind OSU in the BIG. I think with our schedule being more favorable this year we end up in the top 10, as long as we can run the ball (MANBALL). What say you Mgo community?
Of course he has Alabama, TX A&M and Oregon at or near the top.
Link to article: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130122/way-too-early-2013-top-25/?sct=hp_wr_a1&eref=sihp
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:29 AM ^
Never too early. Never too early!
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:35 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:05 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:44 AM ^
What a bizarre statement. Care to elaborate, because I honestly have no clue what you're thinking.
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:56 AM ^
a hell of a drug.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:43 AM ^
What's the line on the spring game?
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:11 AM ^
Michigan -7.
And Michigan +7.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:44 AM ^
Man, I feel like The Game is going to have that feeling back this year. I am getting chills thinking about it. Not that its importance or significance ever lacked for fans on either side of the rivalry, but this year has the makings of a big showdown with huge implications (unless those implications are a rematch in the BTCG, which is rather likely). Last year featured two good teams and a great match, but it was overshadowed a bit by Michigan's subpar year and OSU's meaningless season.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:44 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:46 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:52 AM ^
...and potentially generous evaluation. Much more realistic than the Bennett/Rittenberg 2013 B1G Power Ranking listing Michigan at number 5 in conference (published just prior to the Lewan announcement, FWIW).
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:17 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:20 AM ^
I think that charachterization of Rittenberg is a little unfair. I don't think he's piled on any more praise on OSU or Meyer than they've received from any other media memeber. I think many over-estimated OSU last year in general, but that's just what happens when you don't lose any games.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:43 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:06 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:40 AM ^
I can't speak for the OP, but I actually assumed the opposite. I figured he meant "obviously" because everyone would assume they are the best teams, or at least going to be ranked accordingly based on expectations.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:15 PM ^
saying that because of my thoughts on expectations going into the season for those three teams.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:22 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:29 AM ^
With the notable exception of 2011. Not coincidentally, look at how the highly favorable turnover margin resulted in an 11-2 season AND a bowl win.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:33 AM ^
Except in 2011 we were #5 in the nation in fewest penalties per game and first in the B1G (Bama was #3 in the nation), and #6 in penalty yards per game. In 2012 we were #26 in the nation in penalties per game, number 3 in the B1G behind Wisconsin and Iowa, but we were #52 in penalty yardage per game. Now we were #99 in the nation in TO margin in 2012 while being #25 in the nation in 2011 (Bama was #23 that year). I get your point, but I don't think penalties are a huge reason why we're losing games. I think it has more to do with INTs, not recovering fumbles in 2012, and the fact that we don't have elite playmakers on defense yet. Penalties, or lack there of, have not been a huge problem. Hell in 2010 UM was #11 in the nation in fewest penalties per game.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:24 AM ^
That schedule is pathetic.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:44 AM ^
Perhaps, but Ohio also got pretty lucky last year. Both ESPN's review of lucky teams based on efficency rankings, and the Mathlete's analysis based on this database found Ohio to be either #1 or #2 in the nation as lucky teams. It's very difficult to go undefeated, and Ohio won all of their close games last year. They do return a bunch of players, but also lose their entire defensive line. I've got to think there will be some regression to the mean and drop a game or two that they shouldn't (like they would have last year if Purdue didn't shoot themselves in the foot, or the UW game, or the MSU game, or the UM game if Borges didn't go batshit crazy). But at the same time, as I noted in my above post, great coaches find ways to consistantly over-achieve, and Meyer has certainly shown at his previous posts that he is a great coach.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:46 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:58 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:46 AM ^
Hey now...beware the Florida A&M Rattlers!
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:50 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:25 AM ^
Without knowing much about the teams ranked ahead of us, I think 12 is too high for now. We may certainly earn it by the end of the year, but we still need to prove we can have a running game post-Denard. We'll have 3 new guys on the line, which may actually be a good thing, but we'll have a bunch of unproven guys in the back field, unless Toussaint makes a full recovery. I'd put us in the high teens or low 20s.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:38 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:41 AM ^
My only real question is how the OL will perform. Yes, there will be two good, seasoned players at OT, one of whom is likely a top 10 draft pick. However, the inexperience on the interior is what worries me. Talented, yes. But also a tad green.
As for the rest of the team, I think we should be quite solid.
The passing game was shown to be pretty good once DG took over as the unquestioned starter. And, the receiving corps should be just as good, if not better, with Darboh and Chesson complementing Dileo and Gallon. No disrespect to 'Tree, but he won't be too hard to replace. Please, more Funchess!
The running game will depend largely on the OL, with some aid from a good passing game.
Defensively, we have Greg Mattison, who only took a group of kids that even Vince Lombardi couldn't win with* and made them into the team's strength immediately in 2011 when he came back. There is a nice mix of experience and talent, along with some depth on D, and I think they'll be even better this year than the last two years.
Special teams has been really good except punt returns (why all the fair catches?). I'm thinking it's just a matter of time before 'Fleet breaks one for 6.
Now let's just hope the team stays healthy all season long!
*paraphrasing Rich Rod
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:45 AM ^
TOP 5 | TOP 10 | TOP 25 | |
SEC | 2 | 4 | 7 |
PAC | 2 | 2 | 3 |
BIG 10 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
BIG 12 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
ACC | 0 | 1 | 2 |
BIG EAST | 0 | 1 | 1 |
INDEP | 0 | 1 | 1 |
MW | 0 | 0 | 1 |
MAC | 0 | 0 |
1 |
SEC | PAC | BIG 10 | BIG 12 |
Bama (1) | Stanford (3) | Ohio (5) | Oklahoma (13) |
Tex A&M (2) | Oregon (4) | Michigan (12) | TCU (15) |
S. CAR (8) | UCLA (24) | Northwestern (21) | Texas (17) |
UF (9) | Nebraska (22) | K. St. (19) | |
Georgia (11) | Baylor (20) | ||
LSU (14) | |||
Vandy (23) |
ACC | BIG EAST | INDEP | MW | MAC |
Clemson (10) | LOUISVILLE (7) | ND (6) | Boise (18) | NIU (25) |
Flor. St. (16) |
SEC obviously well represented. Interesing how top-heavy PAC12 is and how BIG12 is 5 teams squarely in the middle of the top 25 but no very highly ranked team. ACC weaker than they usually are- and Big East is well the Big East (and Louisville is leaving...). Big Ten seems about right- nice to see NW love in this poll!
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:47 AM ^
#12 is pretty generous until we prove we can run the ball effectively in a post-Denard world. This is the big question. I know we are all sweating out Derrick Green (me, too), but the bigger issue is the play of the young blue-chip O-linemen. It's been a while since we saw a Michigan line blowing people off the line and it will do wonders for our running game when that happens again.
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:24 AM ^
I personally think OSU and Michigan tread water as far as skill (that doesn't mean their records won't be different, but the talent level should be about equal). A bounce of the ball here or a bounce of the ball there, the rankings of those two teams seems fine to me. Nebraska should still be solid, especially on offense, and I think NW is going to hover in the general area where they are ranked.
But even outside of that, MSU still has a pretty damn good defense that will keep them in pretty much every game. Wiscy looks like they found a pretty good QB and they still have an O-line and a good RB. Penn St is a big unknown, but O'Brian seems to have them at least respectable. Indiana and Minn are both on upward trends to be at least not terrible.
So overall I think the B1G will be much improved next year. Still won't be the greatest conferense, but won't have everyone saying "the B1G is way down", which will be nice.
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
"The Outback Bowl showed that Devin Gardner can play quarterback at a high level. Notre Dame is the only defense on Michigan's 2013 schedule that can match the athleticism of the South Carolina defense Gardner faced and nearly beat. Plus, Gardner will have an entire offseason working with the first-team offense to help him improve even more."
This is an interesting but pretty fair rating, I think, but what Staples says above actually does work in our favor by itself. In 5 games as QB (bowl included), the final passing stat line on Devin Gardner was 75/126 (59.5%) for 1,219 yards with 11 TDs and 5 INTs, and he managed an additional 101 yards and 7 TD rushing. I would think that, projecting that sort of performance over an entire season and allowing for refinements as the reps pile up, we're in a pretty good situation here.
As was mentioned, running the ball without Denard (who accounted for 1/4 of last year's rushing yards) is a point of intrigue for this team, as well as replacing the interior offensive line - with a manageable schedule, however, there may be more breathing room on these adjustments and a full season of production from Gardner will definitely help out with this.
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:41 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:48 AM ^
Also, with DG back there, I look forward to some awesome mad scrambles once he sees nobody open, and/or he feels the pocket collapsing. He really seems to have a good "pocket presence", backed with some excellent running skills. He reminds me a lot of Vince Young, who will forever haunt my Rose Bowl dreams.
As great of a runner as Denard was, nobody was really ever caught off-guard when he ran the ball. Everyone expected him to run and dared him to pass. In spite of this, he still gained a pile of yards; that's how good he was. I doubt we will see this with Devin; teams will have to fear the pass.
This is going to be a long 7 months.
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:09 AM ^
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:24 AM ^
Not sure why anybody thinks #12 is too high. If you take the same team from last year and played next year's schedule, the team probably goes 10-3. If you cut down on the turnovers, it can go 12-1. In college football, it is all about the schedule. The schedule says 2013 Michigan will be better than 2012 Michigan. And if 2012 Michigan was still a top 25 team. 2013 Michigan is easily a top 15 team.
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:40 AM ^
Except that Michigan was barely ranked (#24 in AP, unranked in Coaches), and your assessment is basically that "as long as Michigan plays better against weaker teams, they'll do better." If anyone still takes for granted that the team can just "cut down on turnovers" as a matter of course, they haven't been paying attention the past few years. Brian's been selling that for as long as I've been reading MGoBlog, and yet it remains an issue.
I think Michigan will absolutely finish better than they did last year, but I think the team has too many question marks (Gardner's continued development, outside WRs, interior OL, RBs, etc) to warrant a jump from #24/unranked to #12 based on weaker schedule alone. Time was, UM used to get the benefit of the doubt from the national media, but I think the past 6 years has really undone that, and the program really has to prove itself again.
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:51 AM ^
Disagree with you on the benefit of the doubt from the media thing. Remember when we were ranked at #8 pre-season last year? All because we recovered an unsustainable amount of fumbles and Gary Gray-ed a game or two? I think the great majority of opinions from people who actually disceted UM's 2011 season and the 2012 roster were kind of like "LOL top 10" going into the season. UM still gets the benefit of the doubt. Maybe not quite as much as they used to, but if we go through the non-conference undefeated, which is quite possible, we'll be in the top-10. And then our toughest games are probably at MSU and then Ohio at home. The schedule does ease quite a bit, and I can totally see how we end up #12 or better.
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^
Yeah, I guess you're right about the benefit of the doubt issue. Michigan does make unreasonable jumps in rankings when the team seems to do well during the season. If anything, my opinion that #12 as a preseason ranking is way too high suggests that the media continues to give Michigan more credit than it probably has earned.
I could definitely see Michigan finishing #12 or higher, but I think it's too high for a preseason ranking.
January 23rd, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^
I agree with much of what you say. Now it gets into a debate about preseason polls in general. I personally don't think we should have them until after week 4. I can find large question marks about pretty much every team in the top-15 except for Alabama. Nature of the college football beast.
January 23rd, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
Preseason polls are mostly hype, but they're an interesting (if flawed) way to get a bird's eye view of how the national landscape looks, in my opinion. I do agree, though, that there should be at least a few weeks of actual play before any polls of any consequence are released.
And yeah, with turnover being what it is in college, every team will have questions every off season. For better or worse, seems like Michigan's questions have become pretty predictable (e.g., QB development, Oline depth, RB performance, down field receiving threats) the past couple of seasons. The D has managed to find some stability, thankfully.
January 23rd, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
As are most power or traditional teams, but outside of that I pretty much agree with everything you said (last year Michigan was ranked high partially based on program prestige, and if you agree that #12 is too high, they probably are this year is well), and think Michigan as a program still has a lot to prove if they want to get back to the top consistently.
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^
I would be disappointed if we finish 2013 with fewer wins than 2012 based on schedule alone. I'm looking at 10 wins this season and ending up with around a number 12 ranking is probably about right, especially if we win our bowl game.
It will be tough winning the big 10 this year but we will be in the hunt within our division and if we make it to the championship game, it should be a close game, probably against OSU, especially if we beat them at home. As always there will be key wins needed at home against NE and on the road against sparty! Northwestern may be tough to beat on the road.
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^
Northern Illinois doesn't belong within a sniff of the top 25. Sure, they prevailed above the rest of the MAC teams, but they got lit up in their BCS bowl and don't they lose Jordan Lynch? I very much doubt they were even one of the top 25 teams this year, much less next year
January 23rd, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
I agree Northern Illinois, and by the writers own metric TCU and UCLA, should not be ranked either. I'd probably replace TCU with one of the 8-5 Big 12 teams that won their bowl like Texas Tech or OKState, and UCLA with one of the 8-5 Pac 12 schools that won their bowl like ASU or Arizona. I'd replace Northern Illinois with a different mediocre team that actually won their bowl like Sparty, or VTech, or Georgia Tech.
Otherwise I think Florida should be down there with LSU, Stanford should be top 10, but not #3, and Northwestern should 15-20, or at least above Baylor.