Holy small font batman

I think it's reasonable to look at the schedule as part of the assessment, but the offense was still much improved over RR year 1 - and again, with a QZ of 0 collegiate experience. However, calling Iowa a plucky overachiever is absurd. There only 2 losses were sans-Stanzi and their win over GT was emphatic. The outcome of the game at Iowa should be considered a positive sign.

in my eyes of your analysis, is that you are attributing too much of the improvement to the schedule. That IS the schedule. We will play a similar schedule to this every year i.e. Conference games, ND, 1 BCS team, and 2 >MAC teams. We always play this schedule, so any improvement vs. the schedule is improvement. Would it really feel that much better to be a more improved team on paper, only to lose 9+ games? No. Winning is the ultimate barometer of improvement.

In 2009 we were pretty much in the same situation as we were in 2008. Defensively, we lost a couple players, and we had a new DC again. Offensively we were loaded with freshmen and sophmores (including 2 freshmen quarterbacks). On special teams, we still had Zoltan, but we had an inexperienced kicker in Oleshmegan. The difference between 09 and 08 is simply hope. There was really nothing good to say about us in 08. In 09 we had a freshmen QB lead us to a couple clutch victories, we saw a couple competitive games that probobly shouldn't have been that close. The only reason they were that close was because the team showed hart throughout the year and never gave up. I think 2010 is where we see why we hired RR. He has players that have some experience, a DC that has been with us for a year already, and he's recruitng players that fit the system. I'm predicting a 9 or 10 win season next year, which will open the door for RR to come back and win the National Chamionship in 2011.

Why are you calling the Purdue game a near-certain loss?!

When you say your thought hasn't appeared regularly on the blog it's because your analysis is faulty; last year's Big Ten bowl results had Iowa as the only victor, while this year the conference went 4-3. This strongly suggests this year's conference is better than last year's; I don't believe our record this year corresponds to a level of improvement.

It seemed that many games this past season were lost on one play, where the team just seem to get all their momentum drained. I hope one more year of maturity, especially on offense, will allow the team to recover from the occasional bad play and it won't sink them! The defense is just going to be a work in progress. A lot of younger players will be starting and I hope we see progress through the year. But with a continued weak defense that may have upside potential by years end, I don't see us winning more than 8 games this season. Losses: OSU and PSU on the road look likely. Potential upsets at home: IA and WI. Games that could go either way: Purdue, MSU, ILLINI, ND,UCON. Should be wins: UMASS, Bowling Green and Indiana. A good season would be to win the games you should, take one of the upsets at home against either IA or WI, take 3 of your close games...that would give us a 7-5 record. May be if we can upset both IA and WI at home or take 4 of the close games we could go 8-4! A not so great season would be to lose both your potential upsets at home and only win one of your close game...that would give us a 4-8 season. Unless the defense plays much better I really don't see much better than a 6-6 record this season with at least a bowl game. I'm still banking on 2011 to be our break out year with 10 wins!!! No matter what I will still be watching and rooting for the team next season. And even if we do go 4-8, then RR should still be given one more season since 2011 will be his turn around season!!!

I agree with the premise that, with very little improvement, Michigan could easily go 7-5 or 8-4. The 2009 team had four losses that could very easily have gone the other way (MSU, Iowa, Illinois, Purdue), and in three of those Michigan was arguably within one play of winning or tying. But that assumes that the games that can go well, do go well. The schedule is tougher in 2010: there is no Delaware State, UConn is a serious threat, and you can never take the Irish in South Bend for granted, even in a rebuilding year. It’s fascinating to note the statement that an “8-4 record will almost certainly appease the fanbase.” And that’s in a season where virtually everyone is assuming that the Wisconsin, Penn State, and Ohio State games are unwinnable. An 8-4 record used to be considered an off year for Michigan, and until Rodriguez arrived there was practically never an opponent that Michigan didn’t have a credible chance of beating. In my view, there is nothing “appeasing” about 8-4. It is merely the minimum record that guarantees Rodriguez one more year to get the program back to something resembling its historical level of dominance. Mind you, I am not saying he’d be fired after 7-5 or 6-6, but I am pretty sure it would be considered. When Lloyd Carr retired, were two losing seasons followed by 8-4 anybody’s definition of “progress”?

No way would Brandon make a big move against RR in year one. And Mary Sue seems to really be 100% behind RR, as is Martin. This is my way of saying that even though I wouldn't want it, a record of 6 - 6 would be sufficient in 2010. A record of 8 - 4 wouldn't mean we were back, but would bring more positive vibes, and help with recruiting. I am looking forward to 2010, but really see 2011 as the critical year . . . our recruiting should have caught up, there should be significant skilled reserves on the bench, a solid and experienced OL, a good secondary, and with Tate in year three and whoever is backup (DG or DR) having time to familiarize with sets and schemes, the Offense should be firing on all cylinders. By 2011, we need to compete with the big boys, and be back in the 9 plus win column.

How does Iowa count as a "plucky overachiever" in the Utah mode? Iowa could very well have been in the NC game if they hadn't lost Stanzi to injury for two games.