Rittenberg is NOT impressed.

about how good we are, when we haven't proven a damn thing yet. Dealing with lofty expectations is hard enough for seasoned seniors, and it's that much harder for freshmen and sophs to keep their heads on straight. Let's earn it.

"It is better to sit in the back row and be discovered than to sit in the front row and be found out." - Irwin Rosen on his 90th birthday.

PSU will struggle as well mostly on offense, they just have an easy schedule.  Michigan should be around 5th in the league.   Michigan is better then NW, MSU, and Purdue.

OSU has to go to Wisconsin and Iowa. Iowa toughest road game in conference is the trip to the Big House, just on those two facts alone Iowa should be ranked ahead of OSU.

 

Not unfair.  If you were to look objectively over the past two seasons, and look at what we have returning, if you were being honest, you would have us somewhere between 7 and 9 in the B10. 

We are young.  We have been pretty terrible over the last two seaons.  Yes, we return much of our offense, but that offense could only carry us to 5 wins last year.  As for defense, well, we lose B. Graham - probably one of the 3 best D players in the B10, as well as D. Warren, our only real QB.  Yes, we have young players coming in to fill the secondary, but so does everyone. 

I am not saying that we will end up in the lower half of the B10, but if we look at this from an outside objective, this ranking is about right.

Now, on to proving it wrong starting September 4.

Most of Rittenberg's skepticism is based on guys who haven't proven themselves yet on defense, so I think he's right to say that Michigan is starting off the year in the lower tier of the Big Ten. The fact is that there are a lot of guys with lots to prove (basically our entire secondary and our linebacker corp).

Despite that, though, I really think this year's defense is more solid all around, compared to last year's. There's less star power, but I'm confident that the guys will prove that they can compete at this level.

Or maybe he is, but really, really wary after what he's seen on the field the past two years.  Preseason stuff is best for building discussion/hype and little else.

Purdue returns enough experience in the defensive front seven to improve against the run and assist a new-look secondary.

Couldn't one replace "Purdue" with "Michigan" and draw the same conclusion?

I guess Rittenberg isn't "one."

Demar Dorsey's departure from the secondary could hurt, and while I'm interested to see what Cam Gordon and others can do on the field, it's hard to buy into this unit right now.

"Departure?!?" Yo, Adam...HE WAS NEVER IN IT!

So apparently Rittenberg must think Purdue has more raw talent in their new secondary and their returning front seven is more talented and capable than Michigan's. 

Sorry, but this is just Rittenberg being stupid, and imo a classic example of sportswriters not knowing squat about sports.

of Demar Dorsey from the secondary will hurt us....  Oh really?  

How can Dorsey depart from a secondary that he was never part of?

I'm happy to have expectations low.  It's great to have a team that's feared, but if they're not going to be feared, it's better to not even be respected.  Let opponents come in thinking Michigan isn't good - I want that to happen. 

Yeah I'm definitely in the same boat with the majority of this thread.  If we had performed well the past couple of seasons then obviously we would be ranked higher, probably where Michigan is usually ranked during the preseason but since we aren't it is more like a culture shock then anything else.  Michigan fans just aren't used to low expectations and low preseason rankings.

It sucks to see Michigan this low in the preseason but it will not mean a thing if we win and win often. 

Sure the departure of Dorsey hurt, but not nearly as much as the departure of Miles, Kelly, or Harbaugh. /rolling eyes

often gives a lot of credence to local fluff reporting and coach-speak regarding "buzz."

Tiller and Hope are both very good at playing the media in terms of creating excitement for their players, much like Dantonio.  They tell the media that they are good and that their players are good and the media believes them and repeats it as "buzz."  I have noticed that Rittenberg does this especially with Purdue and MSU, but he gives most of the teams -- even Indiana and Minnesota -- their turns.

He has had several, positive -- I think overly positive -- articles about Michigan over the past few years, but the coaches who don't pimp get less love from him.  He does not slobber over OSU -- the top team in the conference the way he does over Purdue because Tressel does not hype his team.  He hypes Iowa far more than Ferentz does, and Minnesota less than Brewster does, but in gerenal he mirrors the talking points that the coaches give.  RR is not a hype and is often critical of the team so Rittenberg reflects that.

The guy does a decent job for an MSM reporter and occasionally will have some honest insights as opposed to just parroting the coach-speak and fluff, so I would not really get worked up over him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/9269/final-big-ten-power-rankings-2

Purdue is my early pick as the sleeper team in the Big Ten next fall, as head coach Danny Hope returns several exciting skill players and an excellent pass rusher in Ryan Kerrigan. I really liked what I saw in Big Ten play from the Boilers.

While I admire him sticking to his opinion somewhat, I really believe this is a case of him going off last year's team and being unwilling to clear the slate and make his 2010 rankings based on what he's seen from spring and fall practice, not what he saw last year. 

This is Rittenberg trying to make facts fit his opinion rather than facts forming it.

He does a pretty good job of being unbiased and weighing each team's strengths and weaknesses. While I think we will be much improved next year and have a lot of potential, we are not the only ones expected to show improvement (fans Purdue and MSU seem to be just as excited as we are), so I think when covering the Big Ten you have to make the best decision given the facts and balance out the expectations for improvement each team has. Honestly, any way he ranks those teams somebody is going to be upset. Better to be underrated than overrated any day.

With respect to Purdue, I agree that the hoopla surrounding Marve and how he'll really help the Purdue offense is overdone.  Last year, with a 23-year-old 5th-year QB, Purdue was the 35th-ranked passing offense and 58th overall is scoring at a little under 29 a game.  Joey Elliot put up this stat line in his only season as a starter:

NAME	CMP	ATT	YDS	CMP%	YDS/A	TD	INT	RAT
Joey Elliott	267	433	3026	61.7	6.99	22	13	131.1

I see no possible way that Marve would be siginficantly better throwing the ball, and even if he helps a bit in the running game (though Elliott also produced 268 yds and 4 TDs on the ground), I doubt he'll be an upgrade over Elliott. 

Purdue will struggle as long as that defense continues to be meh, and there is no reason to believe that it will improve considering Purdue's last few recruiting classes. 

Also, Hope's an a$$.

... they think he's going to do somthing amazing. he only started one season at miami and he sucked, than he got blown out by jacory harris in the QB competition. They seem to think he was the next peyton manning and he got kicked out.

Purdue has lots of question marks, and their recruiting at the end of the Tiller era was terrible.  I don't know how many starters they are replacing, but the guys that are coming in (other than QB and RB) were not highly recruited.  I would like us to beat them if we hadn't had so much trouble with them for some reason the past two years.  Plus, Danny Hope did a pretty impressive job with them last year winning four Big Ten games.

What exactly is a "Power ranking"?

As I understand it, "Power ranking" can be defined as: "A sportswriter's subjective view on a bunch of stuff that fits into 11 pithy paragraphs, one for each team in the conference.  It is designed to get readers talking, and arguing, and telling their friends about the existence of the aforesaid 'Power ranking,' which leads to yet more hits for my webpage.  And, in the end, the 'Power ranking' is sufficiently lacking in specificity so as to be entirely and plausibly deniable by the author." 

I don't expect I'll spend any more time wondering about it, but what was Michigan's power "number" (?!?) that resulted in this "ranking"?  Was it "two and a half"? Was it "1137.8"?  Is it measured in light-years?  Grams-per-meter, squared?  What is the unit and basis of measuring football team "Power," Mr. Rittenberg?

I believe a wise man once said "Haters gonna hate"