ESPN post-NSD Way-Too-Early Top 25
It feels like a lifetime away but here is ESPN's take on the Top 25 post-NSD yesterday. They did a 'Way Too Early' Top 25 right after the bowls so they basically just updated that based on on recruiting classes panned out.
Obviously Alabama is #1 because why not. I didn't realize that they play FSU (#2 on list) the first game of the year in 2017. Note that Florida (M's first opponent in 2017) does not make the list.
In terms of the Big Ten:
Team (Way-Too-Early #1, Way-Too-Early post-NSD)
OSU (#6, #4)
PSU ((#4, #5)
Wisky (#9, #12)
M (#12, #14)
MSU (NR, NR)*
*Character is not quantifiable thus ESPN was not able to fully get their minds around how good State is going to be next year.
February 2nd, 2017 at 1:49 PM ^
Florida, 2016 Citrus Bowl. And, don't even try to argue it was technically a neutral site game.
February 2nd, 2017 at 3:35 PM ^
I don't need to argue, because it was, in fact, a neutral site game. Sure, Florida had a few more (disheartened) fans there, but it was nothing remotely like playing a game in the Swamp. Would you consider a game at Ford Field against Florida with 30% of the tickets owned by Florida fans to be the same thing as playing at Michigan Stadium?
Bowl games, in unfavorable regions or not, are not at all like regular season games on an opponents home field.
February 2nd, 2017 at 3:46 PM ^
February 2nd, 2017 at 7:21 PM ^
You just gave a pretty good description of the Rivals board during the Carr era.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:43 PM ^
Not scared about Penn State at all. They lost their best deep threat, and if they want to play the arm punt game with us, good luck. I would love to see them ranked high and we waltz in to Happy Valley and dust them off once again.
February 2nd, 2017 at 4:55 PM ^
I think Michigan will have problems at both Penn St. and Wisconsin. We are going to be awfully young, but talented. We will be in both those games and can hopefully pull out victories in each.
February 2nd, 2017 at 4:55 PM ^
I think Michigan will have problems at both Penn St. and Wisconsin. We are going to be awfully young, but talented. We will be in both those games and can hopefully pull out victories in each.
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:39 AM ^
Wisc is too high too. I don't mind UM being 14. Given the loss of players, that makes sense.
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:45 AM ^
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:46 AM ^
Didn't click the link yet either, but I'm guessing it had to do with other teams moving up because of how their offseason is going, and not because of anything with us.
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:59 AM ^
LSU and Georgia jumped us.
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:13 AM ^
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:51 AM ^
I mean, it is a little silly. LSU jumped like 6 spots. On what? The strength of a recruiting class that will largely not be meaningful contributors? I don't see any freshman being that meaningful to a team.
February 2nd, 2017 at 1:00 PM ^
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:59 PM ^
February 2nd, 2017 at 3:23 PM ^
Few things bother me more than someone saying "I didn't read the article we're all talking about, but let me share my thoughts on it anyways..."
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:45 AM ^
MSU also too high
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:53 AM ^
This is a football ranking, not a ranking related to drugs.
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:00 AM ^
What's lower than NR? --?
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:06 AM ^
Rutgers.
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:28 AM ^
NR = Not Rutgers, therefore NR > Rutgers
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:23 AM ^
The problem might be that there is no formal name for the category of teams that sit below "NR", but I can see how you might argue that such a thing exists. I suppose we could call it - "Are they still playing football? Who knew?" or something along those lines. Rutgers would fall into this category as well. Wake Forest has been in it for decades at least.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:49 PM ^
February 2nd, 2017 at 1:54 PM ^
...NR with dignity?
The difference between unranked and not ranked: unranked = you could have been ranked, but weren't. Not ranked = you weren't even good enough to consider ranking.
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:49 AM ^
I mean, they do return 16 starters from a pretty good team. The loss of Godwin hurts though. I'd put them behind Washington for sure and maybe behind LSU (who I think is too low). But its tough to say Clemson, OU, OkSt, or Auburn should be ranked higher.
Looking at the rest of the list, I'd have Georgia (17 returning starters) and Stanford (16 returning) ranked higher.
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:18 AM ^
Per Connelly, OU, OK State, Auburn bring nearly 70% of their production back overall. That's pretty darn good. Yes Stanford and Georgia are mid 70%s too.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/1/31/14451014/2017-ncaa-f…
Clemson sub 50%.
Michigan in 2018 is going to be in great shape in returning production. This year...not so much.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:27 PM ^
I'd feel better about Oklahoma if they weren't losing all of their offensive weapons. Its nice Baker Mayfield is back for his 8th season of eligibility, but I don't know who he's giving the ball too. OU is losing 2300yds of rushing, and 2000yds of receiving. And given that, I'm not sure how Connelly says 70% of their production is back.
Auburn and OKSt were hot messes at various points of the season, so I'm not super optimistic about them even if they have a good amount returning. Maybe Auburn only because they've recruited well.
As for Clemson, I've done the "they've lost too much" song and dance the last two years in a row. Not doing it again. They're Alabama-lite as far as I'm concerned.
And 100% on Michigan in 2018. I'm going into the 2017 looking at it like a preview season for 2018. If they lose 3-4, that's OK. We'll get 'em in 2018 in the Death Star is fully operational.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:36 PM ^
and large, I agree with you. But Harbaugh did himself no favors by letting The Game slip from his hands this year. I think there is some pressure on him to beat Ohio State next year. I think the pressure is a little less to win the conference, go the Playoff next year, because the team is going to be very young, but if he falls to 0-3 against OSU....... with the 2018 game on the road against what will be a loaded Ohio State team. Yeesh.
I am not making ridiculous "hot seat" statements or any of that nonsense, but let's just say it would behoove Harbaugh to beat OSU at the Big House next year, both for the outlook of next season and for his blood pressure going forward.
February 2nd, 2017 at 3:28 PM ^
Yeah, the head-to-head optics against Ohio State don't look like they are going to be great. But, CFB is a wierd sport and anything can happen.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:38 PM ^
Oklahoma plays in a weak conference, in which they will always contend, but you're right about their talent losses. However, Auburn and OkSt both overcame shakey early starts to hit the gas late in the season, figuring things out. If they have key guys coming back (I honestly haven't checked) I think it's quite reasonable to expect them both to perform very well.
Clemson's major problem is at QB with Watson gone. They're a solid team, but he was the key to their success in a way that has not been the case for a team like Alabama (though put Watson on Bama, OSU, or even Michigan and those teams all win the title last year, IMO).
My only hesitation on Michigan in 2018 is that a lot can happen in two years. A guy gets injured or there's a locker room problem or something goes south and people start getting jittery.
Hopefully not. We have a rock-solid staff and two massive high-quality recruiting classes to mitigate that stuff. And, if disaster doesn't occur, Michigan starts to hit its stride in 2018 full-time. Given that the only significant losses after 17 are projected to be Cole, McCray, and Hurst, I think you are dead-on correct about next season being a "preview" year.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:44 PM ^
Clemson loses their QB this yr though. When you return a stud QB you have more than 95% of the teams in CFB do so I wouldn't have been that down on them. Even when I scout mediocre teams I look who has a mediocre returning QB since it helps a lot. Clemson is talented but I don't see them as Bama... they had a singular CFB talent ala Newton or Young... and some ridiculous WR corps as well who are leaving.
February 2nd, 2017 at 3:36 PM ^
Just saying. I've said that about their losses on DL the last two years in a row. I thought Vic Beasley would be tough to replace. Then Lawson and Dodd had monster seasons. Then I thought it would be impossible to replace those guys, and Watkins and Lawrence stepped up.
Does it look like it'll be tough to replace Watson? Absolutely. But I'm done saying it can't happen with Clemson. Hunter Johnson is a stud QB just like Watson was. And overall, they recruit too well and are too well coached. Much like Alabama -- just to a lesser extent because no one is like Alabama.
February 2nd, 2017 at 5:41 PM ^
You can get good QBs, but you don't just get a Deshaun Watson right off of the street. I don't think Watson is quite at a Vince Young/Cam Newton level, but he was clearly the big differencemaker on the team. Neither Texas nor Auburn could equal their previous success replacing their generational talents, even though both maintained plenty of talent afterwards. Clemson, in addition, loses dominant receivers that could make that replacement QB look good (think Braylon Edwards with Chad Henne).
It's a tough act to follow. None of this means that Clemson will stink next year, but it does mean that a playoff berth is a long shot. As it is they lost to Pitt and nearly to NC State, both at home, and they were the best team in the country.
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:45 AM ^
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:51 AM ^
Overrate you say? Where's Notre Dame on that list?
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:07 AM ^
They were the number one independent! Duh.
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:04 AM ^
ESPN was the only service to have him listed as a 4* instead of a 5*
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:44 AM ^
Michigan gets a top 5 class and dropped 2 spots from the original "way to early" rankings? That is....interesting???
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:47 AM ^
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:12 AM ^
It does not look like the really updated their Michigan info to reflect NSD. No mention of Solomon, Collins, etc.
Whatever. Like they said, way too early.
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:53 AM ^
Maybe they looked again at what Michigan lost personnel wise. No one else in the top 25 loses anywhere close to the amount that Michigan does. They have 5 returning starters. Next worst is #22 West Virginia with 7, and then #24 Boise State with 11.
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:44 AM ^
See Michigan #12 (too low)
See PSU #4 (WAY too damn high)
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:57 AM ^
So where would you rank PSU and Michigan? And not just a "feels like they should be #10" type of ranking. Look at the other teams and figure out where you'd slot them.
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:09 AM ^
Are 49 and 10 okay rankings? I kid!
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:17 AM ^
Here's a start: Not 5th in the entire country for Penn State.
Those McSorely arm punts are not going to keep working now that everybody knows to just have a DB stand on the right sideline at the 20 and wait for the pick.
February 2nd, 2017 at 11:17 AM ^
If I'm an OC with Saquon Barkley in my backfield, I'm totally cool with DBs standing on the sideline 30 yards downfield waiting for deep passes.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:07 PM ^
vs Michigan in the Harbaugh era ?
2016 15 carries for 59 (includes a 30 yd run)
2015 15 for 68 (includes 56 yd run)
NOT GOOD.
Go Blue!
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:50 PM ^
Damn right, Penn State lost their #1 deep threat too. I would put penn St in the top 10-20, but top 5, lol. I can't wait to kick their ass in happy valley next year.
February 2nd, 2017 at 12:29 PM ^
Again, look at the other teams and tell me where you'd rank them. Lowest I'd rank them is maybe 8th.
February 2nd, 2017 at 10:45 AM ^
Now that NSD is over, and we don't need to sell recruits on how good we might be, who cares where we are ranked for next year? Play the games, kick some ass and use the disrespect card if need be against any opponents who are higher ranked. And then see where we stand at the end of the season. That's what matters anyhow.