Thoughts on the 2010 football schedule
Last year, the Wolverines won their first four games and then proceeded to lose all of their remaining games (I'm not counting the practice they sold tickets to). Quite possibly the single most painful way for a season to unfold...
So what do we see for this year? Here's the schedule, home games in caps:
Sept. 4 ~ CONNECTICUT
Sept. 11 ~ Notre Dame
Sept. 18 ~ MASSACHUSETTS
Sept. 25 ~ BOWLING GREEN
Oct. 2 ~ Indiana
Oct. 9 ~ MICHIGAN STATE
Oct. 16 ~ IOWA
Oct. 30 ~ Penn State
Nov. 6 ~ ILLINOIS
Nov. 13 ~ Purdue
Nov. 20 ~ WISCONSIN
Nov. 27 ~ Ohio State
This is the same conference schedule as last year, in the same order. Only the stadiums are changing.
One key difference is all the non-conference games are on the front end. No baby seals on the menu in the midst of conference play. I see that as a good thing. It definitely didn't help last year -- the feast just seemed to leave the team lethargic the next week against Penn State.
Win or lose, UConn is a great way to prepare for ND the following week. The Huskies are probably about right in competitive terms for a hungry UM team coming off a disappointing season, so it should be a good, hard-fought game. Just what the doctor ordered. I give the Wolverines the edge at home.
Notre Dame is an unknown. New coaching staff, star quarterback and running back gone. Two very good seniors gone on the offensive line. Sound familiar? Nonetheless, they open against Purdue at home, so they will be primed and ready to go when UM comes in the next week. But I like having a tough early road game. Last year, the first road game was the first loss. There were no road wins. Four home games in a row is not a good way to start a season.
So even if Michigan goes 1-1 in the first two games, the team will at least know the drill when they go on the road to Indiana to start the Big Ten season. IU will be out for revenge, but let's say we score enough points to win going away, like 40 or something.
Thus, like last year, it's not inconceivable the team could have three wins going into Big Ten play, and four when they play State. The big difference being that this time Michigan will have the experience of a gut-check road game in South Bend under their belts, and after Indiana we are looking at back-to-back home games against State and Iowa. This is a much better outlook than last year, which was the opposite.
Iowa is homecoming, followed by a bye week and then a five-game grind beginning at Happy Valley and ending in the Horseshoe. This is a tougher way to finish the season than last year, but if we play Penn State at 5-2 again it will be a more seasoned, mature 5-2, with at least a few more wins to be expected. [That is, more than none!] Plus, there was no bye week last year. The team played every week. An extra week to heal at mid-season should help matters.
I doubt 9-3 is realistic, but 7-5 or even 8-4 seems possible. I expect a lot of carnage (i.e., parity) in the Big Ten this year, much like last year (UM's dismal results notwithstanding), so even 7-5 could mean a decent bowl berth.
So what do we see for this year? Here's the schedule, home games in caps:
Sept. 4 ~ CONNECTICUT
Sept. 11 ~ Notre Dame
Sept. 18 ~ MASSACHUSETTS
Sept. 25 ~ BOWLING GREEN
Oct. 2 ~ Indiana
Oct. 9 ~ MICHIGAN STATE
Oct. 16 ~ IOWA
Oct. 30 ~ Penn State
Nov. 6 ~ ILLINOIS
Nov. 13 ~ Purdue
Nov. 20 ~ WISCONSIN
Nov. 27 ~ Ohio State
This is the same conference schedule as last year, in the same order. Only the stadiums are changing.
One key difference is all the non-conference games are on the front end. No baby seals on the menu in the midst of conference play. I see that as a good thing. It definitely didn't help last year -- the feast just seemed to leave the team lethargic the next week against Penn State.
Win or lose, UConn is a great way to prepare for ND the following week. The Huskies are probably about right in competitive terms for a hungry UM team coming off a disappointing season, so it should be a good, hard-fought game. Just what the doctor ordered. I give the Wolverines the edge at home.
Notre Dame is an unknown. New coaching staff, star quarterback and running back gone. Two very good seniors gone on the offensive line. Sound familiar? Nonetheless, they open against Purdue at home, so they will be primed and ready to go when UM comes in the next week. But I like having a tough early road game. Last year, the first road game was the first loss. There were no road wins. Four home games in a row is not a good way to start a season.
So even if Michigan goes 1-1 in the first two games, the team will at least know the drill when they go on the road to Indiana to start the Big Ten season. IU will be out for revenge, but let's say we score enough points to win going away, like 40 or something.
Thus, like last year, it's not inconceivable the team could have three wins going into Big Ten play, and four when they play State. The big difference being that this time Michigan will have the experience of a gut-check road game in South Bend under their belts, and after Indiana we are looking at back-to-back home games against State and Iowa. This is a much better outlook than last year, which was the opposite.
Iowa is homecoming, followed by a bye week and then a five-game grind beginning at Happy Valley and ending in the Horseshoe. This is a tougher way to finish the season than last year, but if we play Penn State at 5-2 again it will be a more seasoned, mature 5-2, with at least a few more wins to be expected. [That is, more than none!] Plus, there was no bye week last year. The team played every week. An extra week to heal at mid-season should help matters.
I doubt 9-3 is realistic, but 7-5 or even 8-4 seems possible. I expect a lot of carnage (i.e., parity) in the Big Ten this year, much like last year (UM's dismal results notwithstanding), so even 7-5 could mean a decent bowl berth.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:16 PM ^
genetically and pathologically? Where did you learn those big words, Mr. Troll?
January 9th, 2010 at 1:34 AM ^
Were routinely taught in my grade and high schools. I used them extensively at the University of Michigan in 1979-81. Disagreeing doesn't make me a troll, being obnoxious about it does.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^
The problems at Michigan so far under RR? Let's examine each position group this year compared to 2009 and 2008.
OFFENSE:
QB-Over the last two seasons we had only two choices for our starting QB. Either start a freshman, or a walk-on. Steven Threet doesn't really fit the system, and frankly wasn't that good. He was inconsistent, and also had a young supporting cast. Threet was a frosh (RS) who hadn't been in the system long. Sheridan is a walk-on, and is just not very good. I'm sorry i appreciate he & David Cone efforts but they aren't UM level talent. Forcier enrolled early and showed all the signs that he can be a major college QB, but also look like a freshman who had never played college football. A thousand wonders why??? His backup this year was Denard Robinson. Robinson is "fast fast" and may have a future as a QB, but he only arrived in August and needs a ton of work to get there. Troy Smith wasn't a starting QB until his redshirt sophomore year and even then was a scrambler first with lots of questions.
We have only seen the worst case scenario at the most important position in this offense. With Forcier and Robinson as sophomores, and Gardner entering the fold the competition and depth, talent and experience will be way beyond 2009. This is starting to look like a Michigan Wolverine talent level depth chart.
RB: We will miss Minor's talent. But C'mon, when was the last time this guy was fully healthy. Vincent Smith is expected back in the fall, and honestly Toussaint is probably much better. He's 205 as opposed to 170. Shaw, Cox, Hopkins EE, White EE etc. We still have depth and talent that is very impressive.
WR/TE: Hemingway, Stonum, Stokes, Gallon....what do these guys all have in common? They were HS All-Americans. They also are all viable options for No. 2 receiver behind Roy Roundtree who is a phenom. The depth, talent, and overall experience/age is trememndous. Grady, T. Robinson, Odoms? Cam Gordon, along with Ricardo Miller gives us great size. Jerald Robinson and Jeremy Jackson enroll early. Koger, Webb and Moore are tight ends. How many true freshman and true sophomore are going to HAVE to start this year? Zero
OL: We have Molk, Schilling and Omameh back who all could form an excellent interior. We have two tackles in Dorrestein and Huyge who have shared starting roles! Enter the redshirt freshman who were high school all-americans Quinton Washington and Taylor Lewan, along with HS AA Ricky Barnum (rs soph.) We have about a dozen or so schalarship linemen. This is the biggest, deepest and most athletc line we will have had by FAR!
Next: defense
January 7th, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
DEFENSE:
DL: We lose Graham. That's not a good thing, however our starting lineup should be stronger up front for one reason I think. Our Jimmy's and Joe's match our x's and o's. Our Nose Tackle last season was Mike Martin and our 3 tech DT was Ryan Van Bergen. I expect William Campbell to step in as the Nose, and Martin to move to 3 tech. We will gain about 60-70 lbs. at those two positions because of this move. Hence, we can defend the power run better, and might not have to overcommit to the run as much as in 2009, leaving our secondary and linebackers susceptible to big plays as often. LaLota and Van Bergen are in this group as well as Greg Banks and Renaldo Sagesse. We will be a year older, and hopefully be able to at least formulate a two deep. More bodies and experience also.
NT Campbell Sagesse ?
DT Martin Banks Ash/Talbott
DE Van Bergen LaLota Watson/Wilkins
LB: We lose Brown. This isn't that big of a deal. Brown may be good, but he isn't irreplaceable. Mouton, Ezeh, Herron and Roh all have experience along with Leach. Craig Roh will bulk up and can play like a stand up rush DE, to help our DL and pass rush, again adding more size to the front seven. Getting pushed around will be less of a problem. Expect Fitzgerald and Demens to take on larger roles as both are legitimate LBS. Demens has alot of what you look for in a solid MIKE LB, and Fitz is maybe the best traditional/conventional LB on the team. More upperclassmen across the board will help. Keep in mind Isaiah Bell was an UA AA and will be joined by a Hawthorne and Jones as guys who reportedly have grown significantly larger and stronger. This may not be exactly what it looks like but you get the idea.
MIKE Ezeh Demens/Leach
WILL Mouton Fitzgerald
SAM Bell Hawthorne/Jones
OLB Roh Herron
DB: We lose Warren and this groups concerns me the most right now. Still, we have 3 returning starters. Woolfolk, Williams and Kovacs. These guys were young last season, and we also add Justin Turner and Vladimir Emilien to the list along with JT Floyd, Thomas Gordon & Teric Jones. Emilien is legit, and Turner might be just as good as Warren. I'm not sure this group will be significantly better than last years group, but it will be better. It's older across the board, and Turner is a SERIOUS talent. Remember that Warren started as a true frosh and did a really good job. With all the DBS coming in Marvin Robinson, Cullen Christian (AA), and possibly Sean Parker/ Tony Grimes/ Rashad Knight/ Dior Mathis? This group may have some depth behind for the 7 or 8 guys already in the program.
CB Woolfolk Floyd/J. Rogers
CB Turner Christian/Teric Jones
SS Williams Gordon/ Parker?
FS Kovacs Emilien/M. Robinson
Keep in mind we had 5 HS all-americans in our 2009 class on defense, and so those guys will play a bigger role. This 2010 class has what is shaping up to be an excellent final class on defense on paper. If you look at the depth chart and experience level last fall versus this year, this season should be better. Plus, GERG is back. Continuity will be another key.
In conclusion, experience, depth, better size and continuity are reasons to expect a better defense in 2010, even if only slightly better.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
schedule looks pretty much the same to me. At this point, all we have to go on (other than hope and false confidence) is previous performance. Until I see the spring game to see how much improvement has actually been made, 6 wins is my guess.
The good news is, there is lots of room for improvement. A very young team gets older and more experienced. Red-shirt freshmen and true freshmen get added to the mix, we don't start a first year quarterback and we don't change defensive coordinators. There is reason for hope.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^
I guess I could have stated it more clearly up-front, but the whole reason I did this diary [my first!] was that I thought the schedule is markedly better this year, or at least as much improved as a schedule can be when you are playing pretty much all the same programs (the exception being UConn, a step up in competition from the MAC last year, but I see that as a good thing), for three reasons:
1. The first two tough Big Ten games are back-to-back at home this year instead of away.
2. There is a bye week between those two games and the remainder of the season, when last year there was none. It is well-placed at mid-season.
3. Two likely losses no matter where they are played, Penn State and Ohio State, are both away games. So more winnable games are at home this year.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
gloss over BGSU in your analysis there. Sadly, I think we've reached the point where we can't take the BGSU's or (gasp!) Temple's of the world for granted when they're making bowl games and challenging BCS conference teams while we're beating Notre Dame and a JV High school squad.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
ignorance on my part. I figure UM can win the game, but it could be hairy. I don't know enough to say anything useful. I will say that I'm glad they're not the opener. I want the opener to be a team these young players have to take seriously and can't get complacent about, but also to be a team they have a realistic chance of beating. UConn fits the bill nicely.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:51 PM ^
i honestly believe that our team is going to play tons better next year than they have the past two. i think the fact that they've done so awful the past two years is going to light a fire under their asses and they'll play well.
at least i hope so.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:12 PM ^
My biggest fear in regards to 2010 is that even the most optimistic forecast hinges on a healthy Tate and Molk. I for one hope that Barwis is putting together the equipment to build there Avatars.
January 7th, 2010 at 6:04 PM ^
I see a lot of close games minus PSU, IA, OSU that a play or two will determine the outcome. Hopefully, Tate will step it up next year and our young defense will improve through the season. Depending on what way the ball bounces I could see this team finishing anywhere from 4-8 to 8-4. No matter what the record in 2010, RR should be allowed one more season where his first recruiting class will be Juniors. If he can not win at least 8 games in 2011, then I doubt he will ever do that well here at UM and he should be let go! Hopefully, this will not be the case, but 2010 could turn out to be a tough near .500 year without a bowl game. But I'll remain patient this year and root the team on!!!! Go Blue
January 7th, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^
If we stay healthy at key positions we will win 8-10 games, but like Markus said, this all hinges on an unproven defense. If our offense leaps again and the defense improves even a bit we won't be hearing any Richrod controversy again for awhile (although if the Freep is still around they'll probably find something).
January 7th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
The thing about Iowa and Ohio State is that, even though we played them really tough, they have a real talent for pulling out wins. We beat OSU in Columbus nonetheless. There is no rationale for saying it, but it happens. I guarantee it just as I guaranteed that win over ESU back in 93.
January 7th, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
An important thing to do before anyone makes predictions is to look back at the other diary about the NFL draft impact on the B10. From the looks of it, between QB and O-line, Penn State is getting murdered next year when it comes to offense. We've seen first hand what breaking in both a new O-line and quarterback at the same time can do. Furthermore, Iowa appears to be losing a lot on the line as well as many of their defensive playmakers. I realize they have Stanzi back, but the guys who protect him will be gone. Then there is Illinois, who loses Juice and has nobody of concern behind him except a pocket passer in a spread option offense. I see Sparty being good on O, while losing a lot on defense.
January 7th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^
Lets say RR does have a 4-8 season in 2010. Would letting RR go really be the answer? With having 4 recruiting classes full of players for the spread, wouldnt changing coaches and possibly offensive system again do more harm than good? In my mind it would only cause more losing seasons than winning seasons. Another coach would have to spend another two to three years to recruit players for their system. I think were calling for RR's head way to early. I am prepared to invest at least two more seasons with RR before I start demanding another new coach. Good things come to those who wait.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:28 PM ^
Ah, the Matt Millen Plan...No thanks.
If RR goes 4-8, there isn't a chance in hell he keeps the job. Who cares if we have to "rebuild" again. The difference is that we begin the process in year four rather than year 6/7. RR has run out of excuses. This is the last chance to turn it around.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:33 PM ^
They return at least 8 starters(if Spievey comes back, that's 9) on defense. A defense that finished 9th in the country in scoring "D". Yes, they gave up 21 points on D to us(7 was Warren's gift pick 6), but the Iowa defense conceded a lot of run yardage believing Tate was a more dangerous passer than he turned out to be and kept both safeties deep the whole game. Their DL returns entirely and their top DE, Clayborn, had a great last month of the season as that entire DL gelled. They're going to be a beeyatch to block next year.
Agree, that Iowa loses a lot on the OL(three quality starters). That's their biggest question mark. Ferentz, is one of the better HC in the country at developing OL, and he'll have to do that next year to win the B10 Championship(their talking a potential MNC next year). But, they have back all their backs including Hampton and Brinson who were the #1 and #2 backs who were hurt and out all season and the two frosh(Weghner and Robinson) who played well all season. They'll be really deep at WR, may miss TE Moeaki(remember that he killed us) but have another seasoned TE coming back in Allan Reisner. They also have argurably the top pass catching TE in the country coming in at TE in 6'7" 250# US Army game player, C.J. Fiedorowicz.
That's going to be a terrific game. Iowa's schedule has OSU, PSU, UW, and MSU all at home. So, very conceivable that the UM game could determine their potential B10 Championship.
January 8th, 2010 at 8:30 AM ^
Yes, they gave up 21 points on D to us(7 was Warren's gift pick 6)
Don't you mean Stanzi's welcoming gift to the opposition as a sign of peace and good will?
January 9th, 2010 at 3:31 AM ^
if Rod has another sub-500 campaign and is let go, i don't necessarily think that means we'd revert back to a total pro-style offense. I think a new coach could make a roster full of spread-style guys work. Who knows, maybe we'd end up with another form of the spread (Oklahoma, Texas, what have you...).
i could see why some people would want to give Rich more time, but it should not be too much to expect a low-level bowl bid in year 3. i stated in another thread, we could lose to the big 4 in conference and both UCONN and ND and still be bowl eligible at 6-6. a losing season next fall should be the last straw for Rich.
I don't see it happening though. 8-4, 7-5 at worst. all the fire-richrod hoopla goes out the window, and we're back online as a big ten championship contender in '11.
January 9th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^
If we go 6-6 with no bowl or less than 6-6, I think he's gone. If we go to a bowl he stays.
January 10th, 2010 at 7:38 AM ^
Rich Rod needs to win 8 games in season or he will be fired
No if's and's or but's about it
Personally I feel the baseline for 2010 is 9 wins
I also think we will beat UConn
January 9th, 2010 at 8:02 PM ^
UConn: Loss. UConn is a good team and will be very good next year. Unless we can get some better defense play, we lose this one.
Notre Dame: Tossup. Brian Kelley is 10 times the coach that Weis was. But their key offensive losses will hurt badly.
UMass: Win. No way no how we lose this game.
BG: Win. I don't think we're losing to many more MAC teams either.
Indiana: Win. We seem to own them.
MSU: Win. No way they take 3 in a row from us. No freaking way.
Iowa: Tossup. Same teams will be back from that thriller. Maybe home field gives us an advantage.
Penn State: Loss. Remeber the good old days when we owned them? Well, for now it's PSU's good old days.
Illinois: Win. No Juice, No Benn, No problem.
Purdue: Tossup. Should never have lost at home. Going to Purdue will be harder.
Wisconsin: Loss. Still a bit too much for us.
Ohio State: Loss. We have a chance, since this will be the end of Tate's 2nd season and he will have matured. And I don't think there's much home that Pryor will listen to his coaches enough to improve. Still, it's going to be tough.
So that's 5 should win's, and 4 probable losses. Split the toss ups 2-1 or 1-2 and we're going to a bowl again. Win all 3 and we're in a good bowl and happy with the season. Lose all 3 and we're staying home and looking for a coach.
January 10th, 2010 at 7:24 AM ^
but you have to look at one thing that no one is talking about and that is Rich Rod himself. We all no he has a huge ego. We all know he can't fail this year. I think the difference in this season compared to last season is his future. Last year he knew he had another year to prove his system. This year for him does not guarantee him a fourth. He has to prove he belongs at Michigan. I think am pretty sure he knows win this year or he's gone. Another big thing is the new AD is the "Michigan Man" and I don't think he will stand for another missed bowl game or a loss to that team down south.
Comments