david from wyoming

January 8th, 2010 at 9:30 PM ^

Three RichRod recruiting classes, a veteran defense and quarterback Tate Forcier make the Wolverines my sleeper team for ’10.

(singing) One of these things is not like the other...


January 8th, 2010 at 10:17 PM ^

Yes... #24 b/c of their veteran defense. Their horrible 2009 defense minus S. Brown, Graham, and D. Warren. And what is so Veteran about the 2010 defensive backfield????


January 8th, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^

This just goes to show how out of touch some of these people are with college football. Anybody could've told you our defense is hardly gonna be "veteran." I imagine it's hard to know everything about all major CFB teams, but isn't that sorta part of the job?


January 8th, 2010 at 10:35 PM ^

It's ridiculous because of the way the teams are described and really identifies the lack of analysis by the MSM. It is also annoying as hell due to the fact that Michigan football is described as a "sleeper"...Jesus...this is Michigan which, win or lose, 110 000 strong, "Hail to the Victors", The Big House, 11 National Championships, 42 Conference Titles, 3 Heisman Trophy Winners and 77 concensus All-Americans is never "a sleeper". Damn.


January 9th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^

Our past victories and championships and All-Americans and Heisman winners and stadium could not be more irrelevant when considering which teams are alleged "sleepers" and those who aren't. There might be very good reasons why we are or aren't a "sleeper" in 2010, but they have absolutely nothing to do with our program history prior to the last four years. If all that stuff meant anything truly tangible, we wouldn't have just suffered through two losing seasons. As soon as you start counting on "tradition" to mean the difference between winning and losing, you're screwed. Wins and losses create tradition, not the other way around.

I think it's ridiculous to put UM anywhere near a pre-season top 25, but if I were compiling a list of "sleepers" who might be poised to break through, Michigan is as good a choice as any.


January 9th, 2010 at 1:58 AM ^

Although I think we will improve again, I don't see the justification for the top 25 nod. It seems like they just want to draw more interest from Michigan fans towards ESPN. The offense was already good, and should improve, but the defense is a HUGE question mark at this point. That alone, IMHE, should keep us out. I can't say that I'm upset, though. I just hope the team doesn't expect to be better than they actually are. I doubt they will.

Dave Brandon

January 9th, 2010 at 2:41 AM ^

the espn early top 25 is probably more accurate. regardless, it looks like the big10 is really back on the map after this big bowl season. espn has three big ten teams ranked ahead of the second best sec team. with pc out at usc, and osu beating oregon, we have a real shot to establish ourselves as the second best football conference in the land again. the big12, with texas, oklahoma, and nebraska, is really our only competition.

1) sec
2) big10
3) big12
4) pac10
5) acc
6) bigeast