June 18th, 2013 at 2:27 PM ^

One loss might be enough to keep a Big Ten team out of the CFB playoff in coming years. I'm sure plenty of other schools who have been recruiting as well or better than us have thought the same thing, only to never make it


June 18th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^

and maybe a "count on it" statement is too much, but given how some of our schedules go, once Notre Dame falls off, we just don't have enough high level opponents on the schedule for a couple years to really make me think we'll lose much.


June 18th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^

Over a 3-loss Mississippi State team that competes in the SEC?!  You're insane!  No Big Ten Team could even win 3 games in the SEC!  And look at the Big 12!  They throw for like 600 yards a game!  It's just like the NFL (where playing defense is also illegal).                                                  /ESPN'd


June 18th, 2013 at 4:06 PM ^

As long as the Big Ten champ has 0 or 1 loss, I'd say yes.  If the Big Ten champ has 2 losses it could be iffy depending how other teams across the country did.  A non-Big Ten champion would probably have to have only 1 loss to get in the playoff - again, somewhat dependent on how other teams across the country did.


June 18th, 2013 at 7:47 PM ^

Personally, for now I'm just rooting for a B1G Championship. It's been nearly ten years since we last won it (which I think is our longest drought since the 60's). Once we get that monkey off our backs, we can set our sights higher.

Couple that with the fact that the last time a team from outside the SEC won a national championship, Twitter was something hummingbirds did, and I'm beginning to appreciate the wisdom of Brady Hoke's focus on the B1G title above all else.

Perkis-Size Me

June 18th, 2013 at 4:05 PM ^

Slow down there, speed racer. Just because we're recruiting at an elite level doesn't mean other teams aren't as well.

Also, I'd withhold my judgment about making a title game until I have a full season of seeing Borges run the kind of offense he wants to run. If he game plans in the future like he did against South Carolina, I have faith we can make a title game within three years. If we see anymore game plans like the second half against OSU, we won't be playing for a national title anytime soon.


June 18th, 2013 at 3:32 PM ^

but i actually liked this one once you read over the values they're weighting.

CATEGORIES (weighting)


COACHING (27.5 percent): Quality of coaching staff, with heavy emphasis on the head coach, taking into account potential coaching changes in future
CURRENT TALENT (27.5 percent): Quality of players currently in the program, focusing on the future
RECRUITING (15 percent): Projected quality of 2014 and 2015 recruiting classes, and recruiting momentum
TITLE PATH (10 percent): Ability for teams to compete for league and national titles, based on opponent strength and quality of conference
PROGRAM POWER (20 percent): Accounts for fan and institutional support, facilities, resources and history, in addition to intangible factors 

If you were trending this on a line graph, ours is definitely heading upwards.  OSU is #2, which is hard to argue with when you consider their strength in each category.  But UM at #5 is nothing to sneeze at, which also means that CFB football "experts" are noticing the job Hoke is doing as well.


June 18th, 2013 at 3:57 PM ^

Just looking at recruiting momentum, we might even have scored higher at least on this particular metric than most of the teams in the the studied group, I would imagine. In the last two full cycles, we've gotten three 5-stars and 26 4-stars (using Rivals here), and in 2014 to date, another 5-star and four more 4-stars. Considering that the 2010 and 2011 classes yielded zero 5-stars and only twelve 4-stars total, this is an incredible upward trend by itself. 


June 18th, 2013 at 7:24 PM ^

Yes stars are nice but until you get the talent on the field and it becomes proven it is just stars.

FSU has had a ton of top 5 classes over past 15 years and has done little since late 90s.  UM had a lot of top 5-10 classes 2000-2005 and didnt do much with it either.  Not to rain on parades but USC, LSU, Bama, OSU etc have great classes yearly too.


June 18th, 2013 at 2:50 PM ^

Some big names missing here with multiple NC appearences recently . . . Texas, Oklahoma, USC 

Nice to be at the top of this food chain.  If it holds true, we will be seeing some NC playoff appearences.


June 18th, 2013 at 3:15 PM ^

give you a sneak peek at Oregon. They were 11th and the only thing holding them out of the top 10 was the uncertainty of having a new head coach who isn't Chip Kelly. They rated out well in everything though.


June 18th, 2013 at 3:05 PM ^

Given the quality of their coaching, I can see why they were left off, particularly USC. Mack Brown's best days are well behind him. Bob Stoops has struggled mightily in big games lately. Lane Kiffin has the worst character of any college football coach in the country, and isn't really good at anything except recruiting.Those teams aren't likely to reprise their former glory from the 2000's under their current coaches.  


June 18th, 2013 at 2:38 PM ^

isn't that when the 4 team playoff kicks in? In that case, we just have to be top 4.....undeafeated in the B1G and winning the championship should be enough for that


June 18th, 2013 at 2:42 PM ^

But it also means that Hoke and co have a lot to live up to.  Historically, Michigan's generally done better when they were ranked lower, or when nobody really expected much of them.

It does mean that the rebuilding days are over.  No more of the "we're three years away" phrase that we've been using since 2008.  The next couple years will determine Hoke's legacy and where he'll stand in Michigan history.  Does he live up to the hype that ESPN and the others are gifting us, or does Michigan join the ranks of the perpetually overrated?


June 18th, 2013 at 2:47 PM ^

From the title I figured the article referred to football, but didn't discount the possibility that it was about basketball. The future is bright!


June 18th, 2013 at 2:59 PM ^

But both are in the top 5.  As long as both stay strong, that may be enough to make sure that when one of them is B1G champion, it is not shut out of the NC playoff..

USC and Oregon managed to still be percieved as elite in an otherwise dreadful Pac 10 (before Stanford woke up), and it was enough for them to be voted into BCS championship games.



June 18th, 2013 at 4:13 PM ^

I think a couple things that helped USC was the fact they had very good success in bowl games under Carroll - almost right from the start, and they generally played a pretty solid non-conference slate. 

When you're winning your bowl games and beating good teams in the non-conference slate, it helps how people perceive you in what might be catagorized as an average to below average conference.


June 18th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^

Also USC didnt just beat most of their Pac 10 opponents  but demolished them when they were truly prime time.  Granted Carroll did some "d*ckish" things in his time to run up scores but you saw a lot of 51-10 type of scores.  (and yes they'd brain fart and lose to Oregon State every so often too) That is not what Michigan tends to do, or even in its prime tended to do.  You'd see a lot of 34-7 scores. 

The PAC 10 is top heavy but no different than the Big 10 at this point, it is a toss up which is a crappier conference.  I'd probably lean Big 10 right now since PSU is down, Michigan has been down and Ohio has been the only relevant national name.  USC is down some but Stanford and Oregon have picked up their slack.  Once we get back in shape the 2 conferences should be aligned better - Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska (or Wisconsin) paralleled to Oregon, USC, Stanford.


June 18th, 2013 at 2:54 PM ^

IMO this staff is still a wildcard.  We havent seen them coach a game against top level talent with top level talent.  It will still be 2+ years to be able to fully judge the staff.


June 18th, 2013 at 3:12 PM ^

Not all the staff is a wildcard. I think that Mattison has clearly proven himself on the defense, with both the Ravens and the Gators being a reflection on his ability. Don't think that Meyer doesn't realize that Mattison is going to make Michigan a defensive juggernaut. The fact that Michigan stoned Ohio without a TD in the 2nd half last year was pretty amazing. We lost that game, as far as I'm concerned, because of the offense (our O-line, Denard's inability to throw, the lack of a running game, and good but not great receivers.)

I personally think that the 2014 season is when the current coaching staff needs to be evaluated. At that time, we should have solid quality depth across the board. Our linemen on both offense and defense will have had plenty of years to jell, with Pipkins, Clark, Wormley, Kalis, and a host of others fighting for PT. Devin Gardner will have a full year under his belt. We'll have both a decent running game and solid receivers, with Green, Darboh, Funchess, and others maturing to perfection. We'll have 3 years of Mattison's defensive recruits, with a solid LB corps led by Jake Ryan, DB corps led by Countess. 

2013 is the first solid year of transition to doing what Borges wants. (The defense already has Mattison's schemes well underway.) 2014 is the year when Borges won't have to teach as much to the offensive unit as to where to be and what to do:  it should just be instinctive.


June 18th, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^

I agree with your comments on the defense. Not only did that unit shut out OSU in the second half, but also held ND to 13 points and Nebraska to 23. Nebraska's 23 could be considered pretty good because they were averaging over 40 at that point (a couple of creampuffs in there) and we lost Robinson and went 3 and out quite a bit which put our defense at a disadvantage. That game was still only 16-9 into the 4th quarter. Lack of and poor offense cost us those games as well.


June 18th, 2013 at 7:44 PM ^

I almost always find myself agreeing with Mr. Kass' fair and balanced comments.  2014 as long as Devin does not leave early will be the telling point for the offense.  Also it will be the tough year where the big games are on the road.  

I also think Brady had had zero critcism labeled towards him since we are in a honeymoon period and leaving the stench of the previous administration people would be happy with any improvement not to mention a BCS win and 11 win season his first year.  I am not saying he will be in the hot seat in 2014 but by then people will be past the honeymoon stage and the first "WHAT THE HELL - WHY DOESNT HE WEAR A HEADSET AT SUCH A CRITICIAL MOMENT" folks should be out.  

I also agree with Mattison - what he did 2 years ago with essentially the same crew as 2010's putrid mess has me a believer.  My concerns are wholly on the offense - I thought the Iowa offensive game plan was awesome and was so excited to see it carried forward, and then I saw what he did in 2nd half against OSU and my heart hurt.   Hoke also strikes me as very loyal so looking way down the road if the offense struggles I am wondering if he is the guy who will be keeping his coordinator no matter what out of loyalty - but I hope all these issues are moot with the influx of talent.


June 18th, 2013 at 8:32 PM ^

if a coordinator is causing losses, he'll be kicking pebbles down the street. Not so bad in this buisness though cuz once you been there, you tend to get recycled, not unlike MLB and any high level sport for that matter. Hell, the good ones today make almost a million dollars more per year than Bo made in his first year.  They can afford to be let go.