Future rankings
ESPN does a future rankings (next 3-5 years) and here is the updated ranking:
1. OSU; 2. Alabama; 3. FSU; 4. Auburn; 5. LSU; 6. USC; 7. Clemsons; 8. Georgia; 9. Texas; 10. Oregon; 11. ND; 12. TCU; 13. Texas A&M; 14. Baylor; 15. UM
I think ESPN is under-rating MSU and Florida. Both will be more succesful than Baylor or ND going forward.
$Link
Interesting, good for over-a-beer-discussion, and 3 to 5 times less meaningful than pre-season rankings...which are meaningless.
But any number multiplied by zero is....OOOHHHHH.
Not according to this guy....
This is comical in that these type of predictions are just great guesses at best. Not sure what Clemson has done to vault up into a top 10 spot for the next few years.
They seem to recruit so stupidly well considering their track record. Same could be said for Michigan for more or less the last decade. Off the field recruiting success doesn't translate into actual success in any discussion besides pointless future outlook rankings.
won't copy and paste, but it's based on Coaching, Current talent, recruiting, 'title path', and foundation.
Clemson in order scores: 7.4, 8.3, 8.6, 8.6, 8.6
I think their foundation rating is a little high, but they've had solid success recently. Recruiting has been good, they've been top 20 recently but peaked out at 8th last year.
They also get solid points for being an ACC contender. ESPN basically says the ACC has 3 good teams in FSU, Clemson and Louisville. So while it's not the heavy SEC, a good year in the ACC has a pretty good chance of getting a team to the playoff.
IF ESPN thinks MSU starts losing every year to UM and OSU, then either UM should be ranked higher or they are exactly where they should be at with MSU being ranked lower. Either way, MSU is ranked below UM.
Mork is chilling in the tall grass.
Interesting that they have us usurping MSU. I think that we will likely be higher on that list than Baylor, Texas, TCU, Clemson, ND, and TAMU. There will be others powers not on that list that surface/resurface as well, but I see no argument as to why we aren't a top 5-10 school in 5 years.
If we are only 15th ranked in 3-5 years Harbaugh has not done his job. Obviously this is just link bait and completely useless speculation but reality is UM needs to be a top 8 type of program starting 3 years from now. Harbaugh is paid that way and expectations are to be along with OSU the top dog in the conference by that time.
i'm not an insider so I can't read the whole article, but from the summary, it sounds like they are ranking the next three years in total. They may think we're still not going to be great this year or maybe even next, but a significant turnaround in year three could have us as the 15th best team over that 3 year period.
12, 6, and 1.
We want that NC, and damnit, Jim Harbaugh is going to give it to us.
/ok 12 is slightly optimistic for this year.
As another mentioned this is a decent over a beer conversation.
*sips coffee*
FSU it remains to be seen how they will do without Winston and a few others
LSU is a mixed bag not sure I would rank them this high
Clemson I do not get
Georgia & Texas - underperformers for a while not seeing a reason yet why this has changed
ND - overrated as usual
Texas A&M - Not seeing what they're seeing
Baylor - not sold on their greatness yet
MSU needs to be on this list...Dantonio has shown staying power with his program
I actually think Baylor can hang around, and its similar to why I think MSU will be in this mix as well. Mark Dantonio is not going to leave MSU, and Art Briles is not going to leave Baylor...
Briles is revered down here in Texas as a football god... he's clearly got some genius and can develop players really well.
I thought I read something...somewhere about Briles not being very well liked in the College Football world? Anyway thanks for the update on Briles I've heard the guy is a good coach but haven't really paid much attention to him.
Texas on the other hand hasn't shown much so I don't know why they're so far up there, unless they're just going off the fact that we have tons of football talent in the state. I don't agree with their ranking.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Seems about right for us.
#30 in 2015
#11-12 in 2016
#4 in 2017
Whatever. Just bullshitting
Clemsons suck. Both of 'em.
Michigan wins the NC on the 20th anniversary of our last NC.
Source? My ass. Which is apparently where ESPN has been getting their predictions as well.
it would like to give out in case I feel like losing a couple of dollars?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Notre Dame has had 1 10+ win season in the past 7 years; tire-fire Michigan has as many 10+ win seasons over that same span. For some reason people keep thinking ND is going to return to glory or whatever when, frankly, we've had 10+ years of evidence that isn't the case. They might get lucky every once and a while, but it isn't a given by any means.
I also wonder a bit about A&M. For all the numbers that offense puts it, Sumlin has been trending down these past couple of years and I'm not remotely certain that they won't keep chugging along at 8-9 wins in the SEC.
Kind of agree. He's been all offense and no defense pretty much at both places he's been head coach. He got Chavis to leave LSU to be the DC at A&M so we'll see if Chavis can get the D turned around.
If by preseason rankings you mean the offical rankings. The reason they are not meanless is that top ranked pre season teams hold a considerable advantage heading into a season than say a team that is ranked 20-25. Why? Cause it gives the top ranked teams more margin for error. A preseason No. 1 can suffer an early loss and will drop to maybe 8-10 and still ahead of an undefeated team that started the season at No. 25. They will still be very much alive for a playoff berth. An early season loss to a No. 22 team for example can dash a teams playoff hopes.
That advantage has been mitigated more now with the playoff format, before it was a considerable advantage. But preseason rankings are anything by meaningless (rightly or wrongly), in fact I will argue they shape the season.
Michigan's main issue is current talent.
Coaching - 8.4 (I think low for sure, but I get why they're being cautious with Harbaugh)
Current talent - 6.9 (hard to argue much either way on that)
Recruiting - 8.3 (fair enough, Hoke did well. Harbaugh is getting rolling but taking lower tier recruits according to the services so even if they're great players it won't show here yet)
Title Path - 6.5 (in same division with OSU and MSU so that makes sense)
Foundation - 9 (fair enough, lots of history, not good recently though)
Harbaugh is an excellent coach, college and pro. Should be rated much higher.
Current Talent and Foundation. Aren't these the same thing?
Recruiting. We had one down year, this one. Hoke brought in top 5 classes and we're already rated at #8 this year, and that's before we land the #1 player in the country.
When Ahmir Mitchell Khalid Kareem Rashan Gary Upshur Bush etc. decide, our class will be pretty good.
I am always a bit uncomfortable with these projections because the estimate is based in part on past performance (which in our case will likely not be representative of future results under Harbaugh) and a lot of speculation. I suppose if I had to guess, however, based on the little data that there is on how this will go and if it continues along this path without much interruption, #15 might be a conservative estimate if we're talking, say, 5 years out.