ESPN Top 25 for next year: We're ranked
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10305934/texas-longhorns…
MSU is 5, OSU is 13, Wisconsin is 14, ND is 19, Iowa is 21. And we're 24.
I know that the poll means nothing, etc., but I still found it interesting that people who are paid to write things about sports think we'll be in the top 25 to start the season next year.
January 18th, 2014 at 2:02 PM ^
Have you even looked at your schedule next year? The only games that should be competitive are ND, MSU & OSU. Find me another game that you could lose? *I* could literally coach this team to 9 wins using my Tyke offensive game plan.
January 18th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^
The Nussmeier hire bought him another year at least.
January 18th, 2014 at 12:21 PM ^
Only if Nussmeier is what we think he is. If he's that good, we're likely to win nine or more games anyway. In that scenario, Hoke sticks because we've shown improvement, not because of the OC change in and of itself.
If we go 7-6 again with a proven commodity like Nussmeier, the signs really start to point at Hoke being the problem - certainly he'll be the one taking the lion's share of the blame. I don't believe he is given another year just because of an OC hire - particularly given that in such a scenario that hire didn't make any difference.
January 25th, 2014 at 1:30 AM ^
As long as Hoke finishes above .500 he will be here in 2015. I think if he finishes with 4 or more loses he will be on the hot seat in 2015.
Though, if Michigan goes 11-1 in 2015 and gets in the playoff system, Borges will be saying I told you so, all this team had to do was grow up. But Ness will be the big key to our success. The defense will be stifling. I can't wait!
January 18th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^
January 20th, 2014 at 1:02 AM ^
People act like our schedule is tough next year, It's not. 9-3 with our schedule is a bad season. We should sleep walk to a 9-3 season. 10-2 and either win or atleast be competitive in the MSU/ OSU games or major changes need to be made.
January 18th, 2014 at 9:59 AM ^
Wow, it's not based on the season they just had, but on how good they will be next year. If that's their expectation it will be a disapointing season for Sparty. Does anyone really see Sparty as 19 spots better than UM? I expect them to be more in line with where ND and UM are.
January 18th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^
Define not many people? They lose 3 offensive lineman and half their defense including their two best players (Bullough and Dennard). Losing Lewis, Dennard, Bullough, Allen, Ellsworth, Hoover, and Reynolds will hurt. Next year they will lose to OSU and Oregon. That immediately takes them out of the top 5. They have toss up games against UM, Nebraska, and PSU. I see them losing 4 games.
January 18th, 2014 at 10:04 AM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^
Michigan's OC when they went 11-2 a few years ago?
January 18th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
Our OC was a healthy Denard, in all reality.
January 18th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
A healthy Denard plus our best interior blocker Hoke has had, and a Toussaint the likes of which we never saw again, for whatever reason. The schedule was also more favorable than the two years since (certainly OSU was much worse in 2011 than the last two times we've played them.)
But even that year, Borges' gameplans against MSU and Iowa left a lot to be desired - not to mention Virginia Tech. We forget what an offensive abomination that game was because we found a way to win in spite of it.
January 18th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^
just look it up. Hoke ought to be fired for allowing the 2011 coordinator to get away and hiring Borges for 2012-2013.
January 18th, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^
Borges has a history of starting strong and fading the longer he was at a program. So while you're looking things up....
I can understand people taking issue with Borges taking ALL the blame for last season. At the same time, I don't quite see how anyone couldn't view replacing him with Nussmeier as a step forward. Their histories speak for themselves.
January 18th, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 12:49 PM ^
So Michigan went without an OC in 2011, when did Darth Borges arrive?
January 18th, 2014 at 10:52 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 2:27 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^
We could be number 1. It means nothing til we win
January 18th, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 1:35 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^
The Interceptions were ugly but outside of the NW game, he was much better in that respect after he got some true experience as a starter. (I don't really count 2012 much for DG so i see 2013 as being a 1st year starter.)
January 18th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
and managed to retain a lead for 30 seconds and had Gibbons hit a game-winning field goal in Happy Valley despite some of the worst play-calling in recent program history, would there even be a debate about the potential success of this team next year. Maybe Borges and not Nussmeirer is calling plays next season. So instead of 7-6, maybe Michigan ends 9-4.
I mean winning in Evanston for Ohio was huge, and that outcome probably sealed NU's doom. But winning there by Michigan the way it did, given the way it couldn't run and had to rely on Devin, was a big win.
The other point is this, MSU which just had the best season of any conference champion, the most dominant in terms of margin of victory of any Big Ten team in the BCS era, lost on the road to the Irish in South Bend. And then beat Michigan handily at home.
Michigan beat ND rather handily, and then earned the outcomes of the other rivalry losses based on its ability and likely finish at the time those games were played.
When you are calculating capability of victory in the future based on projected roster strength and experience, and then insist if a certain outcome doesn't result, you're program needs a new coach, when the schedule forces you to win road games to be perfect, and your program hasn't been perfect since 1997, I think it's a little disengenous to claim that you have to run the gauntlet or else. Because everything changes over time.
I think Michigan will be very good next season because it has Devin at qb and almost a complete defense with lots of experience and backups returning. I think Michigan will be in better shape than its been in years to win road games against its rivals because of its experience. And I'm not even factoring in the Nussmeier effect on the offense. We know what needs to happen for this team to get better and win. And those are things under Michigan's control.
But I don't think you blow up the program because you don't win every rivalry game. You just have to get better and try again. Because even when you are very good, you don't always win those games.
January 18th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
and managed to retain a lead for 30 seconds and had Gibbons hit a game-winning field goal in Happy Valley despite some of the worst play-calling in recent program history, would there even be a debate about the potential success of this team next year. Maybe Borges and not Nussmeirer is calling plays next season. So instead of 7-6, maybe Michigan ends 9-4.
I mean winning in Evanston for Ohio was huge, and that outcome probably sealed NU's doom. But winning there by Michigan the way it did, given the way it couldn't run and had to rely on Devin, was a big win.
The other point is this, MSU which just had the best season of any conference champion, the most dominant in terms of margin of victory of any Big Ten team in the BCS era, lost on the road to the Irish in South Bend. And then beat Michigan handily at home.
Michigan beat ND rather handily, and then earned the outcomes of the other rivalry losses based on its ability and likely finish at the time those games were played.
When you are calculating capability of victory in the future based on projected roster strength and experience, and then insist if a certain outcome doesn't result, you're program needs a new coach, when the schedule forces you to win road games to be perfect, and your program hasn't been perfect since 1997, I think it's a little disengenous to claim that you have to run the gauntlet or else. Because everything changes over time.
I think Michigan will be very good next season because it has Devin at qb and almost a complete defense with lots of experience and backups returning. I think Michigan will be in better shape than its been in years to win road games against its rivals because of its experience. And I'm not even factoring in the Nussmeier effect on the offense. We know what needs to happen for this team to get better and win. And those are things under Michigan's control.
But I don't think you blow up the program because you don't win every rivalry game. You just have to get better and try again. Because even when you are very good, you don't always win those games.
January 18th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
and managed to retain a lead for 30 seconds and had Gibbons hit a game-winning field goal in Happy Valley despite some of the worst play-calling in recent program history, would there even be a debate about the potential success of this team next year. Maybe Borges and not Nussmeirer is calling plays next season. So instead of 7-6, maybe Michigan ends 9-4.
I mean winning in Evanston for Ohio was huge, and that outcome probably sealed NU's doom. But winning there by Michigan the way it did, given the way it couldn't run and had to rely on Devin, was a big win.
The other point is this, MSU which just had the best season of any conference champion, the most dominant in terms of margin of victory of any Big Ten team in the BCS era, lost on the road to the Irish in South Bend. And then beat Michigan handily at home.
Michigan beat ND rather handily, and then earned the outcomes of the other rivalry losses based on its ability and likely finish at the time those games were played.
When you are calculating capability of victory in the future based on projected roster strength and experience, and then insist if a certain outcome doesn't result, you're program needs a new coach, when the schedule forces you to win road games to be perfect, and your program hasn't been perfect since 1997, I think it's a little disengenous to claim that you have to run the gauntlet or else. Because everything changes over time.
I think Michigan will be very good next season because it has Devin at qb and almost a complete defense with lots of experience and backups returning. I think Michigan will be in better shape than its been in years to win road games against its rivals because of its experience. And I'm not even factoring in the Nussmeier effect on the offense. We know what needs to happen for this team to get better and win. And those are things under Michigan's control.
But I don't think you blow up the program because you don't win every rivalry game. You just have to get better and try again. Because even when you are very good, you don't always win those games.
January 18th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
MSU is going to be pretty good, but #5? Really? After losing 6 starting defenders and 3 OL? That I have a hard time understanding. Of course, MSU gets a fairly easy schedule AGAIN. They play at Oregon (likely loss), but then the only other tough road game is at PSU. Even if they lose that, the rest of the potential losses are at home (us, Nebraska and Ohio), where I think it's unlikely they lose more than 1/3 of those. That gives them 9-10 wins. Probably end up ranked somewhere in the 10-20 range.
#13 for Ohio is argubaly even less rational: they are losing 4 OL, Carlos Hyde and the good part of their not-good secondary. And then there's the schedule: Virginia Tech (home) will not be easy, nor really will Navy (away) or even Cincinatti (home). I bet they lose 1/3 of those--and maybe 2/3. Then they play at MUS, at PSU and at Minnesota, which won't be a pushover. I bet they lose 2/3 of those. And then us to finish--a tossup, as usual. That gives them 7-9 wins. They may end up somewhere in the 20-25 range, or even unranked.
January 18th, 2014 at 10:49 AM ^
January 20th, 2014 at 9:01 AM ^
Don't discount the 2 years previous to that 7-6 campaign. They won 11 games in each of those 2 years. Almost every loss in the 7-6 year was by 4 points or less. They lost to ND 20-3. OSU by 1, UM by 2, Iowa by 3, Nebraska by 4 and NW by 3.. Its not like they were getting blown out.
January 18th, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
The defense should be solid to very good assuming Peppers comes in ready to play, Pipkins is healthy and everyone keeps developing. I understand that the offensive line could be scary, but I suspect that Funk knows his job depends on making it at least functional and am curious if Nussmeier can make a difference here as well. With a healthy Gardner, Green & Smith having a year under their belts, and Funchess, Darboh, Chesson & Harris all available i feel like the weapons are there on offense. Ifs and buts I know, but just as this season obviously could have been even more disastrous (Akron, UConn, and NW could have gone the other way), similarly Nebraska, Penn State and Iowa were winnable games and we'd all feel differently if we'd been 9-2 going into the bowl game.
January 18th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^
The first rankings of the year and I'm already tired of them.
I love that the team goal is to win the B1G Championship and let everything else sort itself out. Rankings are subjective, the league championship is not. Here's to our success in the B1G next year.
Go Blue!
January 25th, 2014 at 1:41 AM ^
For Michigan to win the B1G. May take a few lucky close victories but if we go 11-1 and win the B1G and a possible playoff game that would be one hell of a season. Michigan may make the type of bounce back that Aubrun did last season! I think one day things will start clicking for these youngsters!
January 18th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^
Just win.
January 18th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
from the past two difficult years. We must remember this is his first job as head coach on the big stage. There is a learning curve and just like his players in needs to grow into the job.
The first indication of his improvement is the hiring of Nussmeir.
He will learn to win the big games and away games.
January 18th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
I thought last season we were a 20 - 15 ranked team. Obviously that was a bad thought. Personally there's too many variables out there for me to feel solid in my predictions, but I say we finish unranked. The final record though. Probably 8-5. I hate rankings this early. Yes, it's to get the blood pumping, but with the pile of crap we put on the field last year, I just want to get through the off season and start playing again to see if that was an anomaly or the norm now.
January 18th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^
OSU will not be all that good this year, I see 9-3 or 8-4 for them.
Sparty? Hate to admit it, but that defense they had this season was extremely deep, sure they lose several guys in their two deep, but they played 3 deep all season. They had the kind of depth on defense I hope we have in a year or two. Watching the stupid Rose Bowl there were guys making big plays for their defense whose numbers I had never seen before and whose names I had to look up. They look loaded on defense and I don't see them dropping off too far on that side of the ball. Offensively, they lose 3 O linemen, but they rotated 8 or 9 guys every game all season. Especially frusrating that they can find 8 or 9 competent O linemen and we couldn't find 3. Their offense should be pretty good next year. They'll get smoked at Oregon, but I see a 10-2 or 9-3 Sparty in the thick of it to get back to Indy.
As for us. 4 very tough road games, but pretty easy schedule outside of that. I can see 10-2 as the ceiling, 9-3 would be good, 8-4 is most likely, 7-5 would mean a huge failure and a coaching change IMO.
January 18th, 2014 at 1:03 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^
Its one thing to rotate in as an o-linemen and play with a bunch of experienced players. Its quite another to start.
Dennard is a massive loss for them. There is no replacing him. They don't have another guy like him on their roster.
Also people are putting way to much into their victory over Stanford. That was the same Stanford team that lost to USC and Utah.
January 18th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
I know that recruiting rankings are not perfect and all - but they do generally indidcate if you have talent or not.
Hoke needs to win some games this year is bottom line. We have the 2nd most recruited talent in this conference.
# of ESPN recruits from 2011 to 2014 with a grade of 80+
Ohio State 54
Notre Dame 50
*Michigan 39
Nebraska 21
Penn State 16
Michigan State 14
Wisconsin 12
Maryland 11
Rutgers 10
Northwestern 9
Indiana 8
Iowa 4
Minnesota 4
Utah 4
App State 0
Miami (NNTM) 0
I like Hoke, but he can't afford to go 3-5 in the conference again like he did in 2013 with the amount of talent that he has...
Teams we play in bold.
January 18th, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^
January 18th, 2014 at 9:54 PM ^
Actually, you are mistaken. Michigan fairs very well. Michigan will have more upperclassmen recruits graded at 80+ by ESPN than every team on their schedule except OSU and ND.,.
Michigan will have 12 (Gardner 2010) and MSU will have 2 upperclassmen on their rosters graded 80+ by ESPN.
January 18th, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^
like I said in the subject... I've been begging to get rid of pre-season rankings, that carry over to the actual season. Even tho it does benefit Michigan when they are good.. but it's a flawed system.
also, not too surprised w/being ranked... it's all a part of what I was just saying. the big boy programs are going to be ranked regardless, for the most part.
January 18th, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^
How exactly do you get rid of them, though? The most the NCAA can do is implement a BCS-type system that includes a poll that is not voted on until the end of the season. Does that mean everyone voting isn't going to have any idea about what any of the media polls are saying? The NCAA can't stop ESPN, Fox, CBS, SI, the AP, etc etc etc from ranking teams. Every week, all the big games are going to be hyped using these ranking systems. No way is a TV network not going to advertise two highly-ranked teams playing each other. All the people voting are going to watch these games. Whatever bias comes with the preseason ratings is going to carry on through the season like it always does.
The problem is not that we have preseason polls. The problem is that the voters - and fans in general - are really stubborn when it comes to changing their minds based on new evidence. This is true in football as well as everywhere else in life, as it's a fundamental flaw in how our brains work. Oh, and then of course you have to combine that with the fact that many of the same people that are voting also happen to work for companies with a financial stake in the outcome, and you come to realize that getting rid of one preseason poll isn't going to change anything.