0-1 Starts: A Historical Perspective

Submitted by The Mad Hatter on

Over 136 season openers, the Wolverines have lost only 22 games — just 16.2 percent.

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/09/numbers_1.html#incart_river

We've lost our season opener 16 times since 1946.  In five of the ensuing seasons we won at least a share of the Big 10 title, and finished 2nd three times.

Discuss. 

MGoBoard
Football
Utah
oregon
Big 10 Championship
0-1

mgokev

September 8th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^

Huge pet peeve of mine. Sorry. We are fans and whether we discuss Oregon State or the Ohio State game, it will have absolutely no impact on the outcome. Why should I focus only on the next game? I'm not playing. I'm not on the team. My focus or lack thereof is inconsequential.
I'd much prefer to talk about interesting topics on MGoBlog than be super focused on the next game while under some illusion that I matter to the team.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 06/17/2009

MGoPoints: 18955

amaizenblue402

September 8th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^

Yes, we lost our opening game for just the 22nd time in 136 seasons.  That doesn't tell me how this team is going to be the rest of this year or give me some inside scoop on predicting the final record.  Nobody knows that.  This stat is meaningless and will not help us know how the rest of the season will go.  The Utah loss left a bitter taste in my mouth and I just want to see a victory over Oregon State and then move on to the next game.

Joined: 09/18/2010

MGoPoints: 14596

ijohnb

September 8th, 2015 at 11:53 AM ^

nothing to discuss about this stat if your only goal on this blog is "maintain focus" and "just worry about Oregon State."  Dude, it doesn't matter what we talk about right now or "focus" on, this post is intrinsically no less valuable than a post breaking down Oregon State.  This is an interesting topic as we almost always win our opener even when we stink so it is somewhat novel.  If you don't want to discuss it why are you insisting on discussing it?

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

MGoViso

September 8th, 2015 at 12:05 PM ^

I think the clarification he has made is sufficient to realize that he is not claiming that fans shouldn't look past opponents. It seems he is pointing out that this type of stat is really an abuse of any sort of inductive reasoning, because the rates of success after losing the opener in years past likely have nothing to do with the rate of success of this year's team.

I don't think he made this point well, and I also hate the "even fans gotta take it one game at a time" meme. However, it should now be clear what this poster likely intended to point out.

Joined: 09/27/2009

MGoPoints: 1689

ijohnb

September 8th, 2015 at 12:12 PM ^

I think people understood. I just don't think most people want to discuss "inductive reasoning" on a football blog and are more of the mind to just say, "yeah, weird, we lost our season opener, let's discuss how that could play out."  

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

MGoViso

September 8th, 2015 at 2:25 PM ^

Since we are nearly equally tenured on the blog, I am surprised you think MGoBloggers would not be up for discussing inductive reasoning :)

Joined: 09/27/2009

MGoPoints: 1689

lilpenny1316

September 8th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^

That would make the winning percentage more impressive.  Nebraska lost their first opener since I believe 1985 on Saturday.  But they were playing Idaho, LA Tech and South Dakota St.  We've started with ND, Boston College and Virginia just to name a few.  

Joined: 11/19/2009

MGoPoints: 61836

Btown Wolverine

September 8th, 2015 at 11:26 AM ^

I don't see how this statistic would provide any information whatsoever about our prospects this season.

The only thing this tells me is that either sometimes we schedule tough opponents in the opener OR sometimes our team isn't perfect.

Oh, and that there's more than one game in a football season.

Joined: 08/23/2013

MGoPoints: 1536

unWavering

September 8th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^

Exactly. Without context, these statistics mean nothing. Who were the opening opponents? How good was the rest of the B1G that year? I can almost guarantee that Michigan will not be winning the conference title this year - our chances are much, much lower than what this historical data implies.

Joined: 01/13/2011

MGoPoints: 22437

Muttley

September 8th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^

 

In five of the ensuing seasons we won at least a share of the Big 10 title, and finished 2nd three times.

 

Three of those first place Big Ten finishes were against ND from 88-90 in frustrating losses in games between Top 10ish (or better) teams. A fourth was against ND in 98 as we opened as an overranked 5th ranked team on the road, but improved steadily over the year to win a number of close games in not-so-impressive fashion.

While I expect this team to continue battling like the aformentioned teams, thinking along the lines of "Don't worry, this team is poised to take on the Big Ten just like in 1988 (or 89, 90, or 98)" is quite a stretch and grossly understates the challenge ahead.

Joined: 07/07/2009

MGoPoints: -73245

stephenrjking

September 8th, 2015 at 1:28 PM ^

I re-read the OP just to make sure, but it in no way suggests that direct comparisons can be drawn between this team and the Michigan teams of the 80s and 90s. Perhaps you aren't asserting that, either, but this reads to me as a rebuke. As far as I can tell the OP is just giving the numbers. And they aren't that great, though anyone who finds the numbers more concerning for our conference chances than a certain football game last night is missing the forest for the trees.

Joined: 03/15/2012

MGoPoints: 20143964

Muttley

September 9th, 2015 at 1:33 AM ^

We've lost our season opener 16 times since 1946. In five of the ensuing seasons we won at least a share of the Big 10 title, and finished 2nd three times.

Discuss.

IMO, there is an implication that the factual observation--that we've often done well historically after dropping our opener--is relevant to this season. (Why else post it?)

My point is to dig into the details of the years that we won at least a share of the Big Ten, and then to question whether those specific years ('88, '89, '90, and '98) have any relevance to this year (as opposed to some vague reference to "five* of the ensuing seasons").

IMO, when the details are brought to light, the relevance of the observation is weakened substantially

*The fifth was 1950, for which I know less than those with access to the SuperGuide™.

Joined: 07/07/2009

MGoPoints: -73245

MichiganTeacher

September 8th, 2015 at 11:36 AM ^

Nice stat. 

I don't think it means anything for this year, but for other reasons I think we have a reasonable shot at doing well in the B1G season. Not great, but well enough given the circumstances.

Before the season, when everything was a mystery, I was thinking that I wouldn't be shocked if we went 6-6 and I wouldn't be shocked if we went 10-2. After the Utah game, I'll be pretty shocked if we're either of those. I think we saw a team that is squarely in the 8-4, maybe 7-5 range.

Joined: 10/06/2011

MGoPoints: 9263

ijohnb

September 8th, 2015 at 11:48 AM ^

are right now, a hard fought loss against Utah on the road is much more valuable than a "kick ass win" against UConn or Western.  The game was both a good learning experience for a team that needs it and provided good perspective for a fan base that (desperately) needs it.  I am glad we are not talking September Heisman for Rudock and breaking down a dominant win over a cupcake right now.  That has gotten old in recent years.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Avon Barksdale

September 8th, 2015 at 11:48 AM ^

Oregon State is all we need to think about. Get that W, then let's concentrate on UNLV. Get that W, and then we can concentrate on BYU... and so on, and so on, and so on. I really hope to see improvement every week unlike the past few seasons.

Joined: 04/27/2013

MGoPoints: 12859