Michigan ranked 24th in final AP poll

Submitted by bo_lives on January 8th, 2013 at 3:50 AM

Bama a unanimous no. 1 of course; Oregon moves up to 2nd with Ohio 3rd and ND falling to fourth. Good to see ND fall multiple places after that lambasting. I think we can all agree an Alabama vs. Oregon title game would have been much more interesting than the one we got... oh well.

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll

Michigan is the only team with 5 losses to make the final poll. Glad to get some respect seeing as we had a mighty tough schedule and 4/5 of our losses were quite close. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades and we were 0-5 against ranked opponents. Definitely proud of our team, and a lot of it was just balls not bouncing our way, but this season was clearly a letdown. Here's hoping Gardner & co. can make a statement in 2013, and most importantly beat Ohio. As always, Go Blue!

Comments

MichiganMan14

January 8th, 2013 at 4:16 AM ^

This season stings a bit...but there are plenty of bright days ahead for the maize and blue. Recruiting is going great and the schedule is more manageable the next few years. We are in line to put together a nice run for multiple B1G titles and maybe more. Salute to the Seniors who helped turn this program around From the ashes.

Knight

January 8th, 2013 at 4:21 AM ^

Michigan is better than #24, but with 5 losses it is hard to be ranked any higher than that even though 4 of those losses were against top 10 teams (3 of them close). Surprised that Nebraska fell to number 25 behind Michigan. 

Autocracy Now

January 8th, 2013 at 6:55 AM ^

Yeah, Nebraska actually had a decent game against Georgia, who ended up at #5. Anyway, these things get hinky after the top 4-5 teams. I don't mind South Carolina ending up where they are.

I do think we are probably much better than San Jose State, however. (channeling Tate Forcier?)

Zok

January 8th, 2013 at 7:04 AM ^

w/o the lucky roundtree jump bowl at home to beat NU, UM didn't beat a ranked team all year. What makes you think they could beat anyone ranked 1-24 so easily?

UM fans need to acccept this team for what it was, extremely flawed. We just need to move on and be thankful for all the roster turnover so that more talent can see the field (regardless of experience). 

Wish Denard could stay forever but thats not legal! haha.

 

Bodogblog

January 8th, 2013 at 8:37 AM ^

well, like he said, we had close losses to the #3 and #4 ranked teams on the road, and lost to the #8 team in the last :11 of a bowl game.  A fourth loss was to the #25 team on the road, where the game was near tied at half when we lost our starting QB.

I don't think Michigan was that much better than its record, but it's not unreasonable to look at some of the 1-24 teams and see potential wins.

This was a good team that fought like dogs, but just couldn't get over the hump (or out of its own way at times, with suspensions, turnovers and some playcalling).  Still sets us up well for '13

jocular_jock

January 8th, 2013 at 8:57 AM ^

I honestly dont see the rationale behind these rankings. Michigan is around 15 with ND. Two losses which we were outplayed to the 1 and 3 team. Take a top 10 (SC) and top 15 team (ND) to the edge. We played NW (#17) even and wound up winning. 

Polls are dumb. People are sheep. BLAH!

Muttley

January 8th, 2013 at 11:51 AM ^

What could have been.

A smackdown from Bama,

Woulda, shoulda losses to the #4 & #8 teams

Coulda six point loss (somehow) to the #3 team

And a loss to the #25 team w/ our offense tied behind our back

Logan88

January 8th, 2013 at 7:45 AM ^

Why did ND only drop 3 spots after getting punk'd by Bama? Michigan dropped 7 or 8 spots after their disaster against the Tide and ND got beat just as badly. Domers should have finished around 8th IMO.  Regarding UM, I know that the team lost to a lot of highly ranked opponents but I have a hard time accepting a 5 loss team in the Top 25 poll.

bluesalt

January 8th, 2013 at 7:58 AM ^

If you're a voter, and you watched 12 regular season games and thought Notre Dame was #1, a loss, even a bad one, against your #2, shouldn't erase the prior 4 months. Michigan, meanwhile, was ranked high off of expectation, and those expectations were lowered post-Bama, and rightfully so.

Now, we can argue that Notre Dame had no business being #1 going into yesterday if you actually watched football and didn't merely look at records, but voters aren't going to admit they were that wrong. It's big of them to drop ND to fourth as is.

saveferris

January 8th, 2013 at 8:59 AM ^

Well they did still finish 12-1.  The hilarious thing reading their blogs is they seem for the most part to consider themselves having turned a corner and a return to the title game and victory is inevitable.  What I see is 2012 ND = 2011 Michigan, a talented but flawed team that had all the breaks go their way.  When Michigan saw fewer breaks, they wound up at 8-5 and the margin was razor thin between ND being 12-0 and 9-3.  Frustration awaits them next season I'll wager, although things will probably improve a bit for them when they load up on ACC snacky cakes after 2014.

BraveWolverine730

January 8th, 2013 at 8:46 AM ^

I know that most don't respect NW becaue you don't expect the wildcats to be good, but I think a win over a 10 win squad who is ranked in the top 20 should count as a good wini.  That being said, the season overall was a bit of a disappointment, but I'm proud of how hard the team fought.

Wolverine Devotee

January 8th, 2013 at 8:59 AM ^

This years final combined opponent record: 100-66. That is the toughest schedule Michigan has ever played. Teams with 13, 12, 12, 11 & 10 wins on there. 

Scary thing is if Michigan scheduled an at least, not HS level MAC team in UMass (1-11), it would have been even higher.

May we never see that kind of schedule again. 

TexanGOBLUE

January 8th, 2013 at 9:14 AM ^

Im OK with this. I think we should be ranked around the same at the begining of the season too. Next season, I would love to keep winning and moving up and going to a BCS game.

neoavatara

January 8th, 2013 at 9:50 AM ^

That is appropriate for what we accomplished.

Things did not break our way all year.  We lost Stonum, an OL, and the Fitz.  Then Countess went down.  We didn't get any breaks...basically all the close games other than MSU went against us.  Then Denard got hurt, and we moved our best WR to QB.  That is a tough slog. 

I am optimistic going forward though. 

Perkis-Size Me

January 8th, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^

this year was, in some ways, the opposite of last year. lets admit it: we were spoiled last year. we won 11 games and a bcs bowl, and some of those games we very well could have (perhaps should have?) lost. but all the breaks went our way last year. this year, we got close to zero breaks. the bama game was a reality check if i've ever seen one. its just part of football. sometimes teams will get all the breaks and lucky bounces in the world. then other times they will just flat out get the shaft on injuries, bad calls, etc. we needed to have a year like this to remind ourselves to keep expectations grounded.

StephenRKass

January 8th, 2013 at 10:15 AM ^

I agree more or less with the ranking. And I think we were in the right bowl.

People have complained that ND was overrated and lucky. Well, they were pantsed, exposed, and embarassed last night against Alabama. Personally, I'm glad it was them and not us.

As I reflected on this MNC game between men and boys, I was actually thankful for the regular season schedule including Alabama, and for our losses this year. If we had not opened with Alabama, if Denard had not been injured, and we had beaten ND, and Nebraska, and Ohio, we would have been in the National Championship Game. And we would have been annihilated by Alabama. Of all the losses, I would gladly flip Ohio. But the rest I'm ok with. Why? Because, as I believe Hoke said, to be the best, you have to play the best. And we're not there yet. Playing Alabama in the regular season gave a truer picture of how far Michigan needs to go.

Michigan is heading in the right direction. I'm excited about the future. But I'm not torn up about this year. I still think that Borges, Mattison, and Hoke overperformed in 2012, given our player personnel. With the offensive and defensive line recruiting, and Green at RB, and Gardner (and then Morris) at QB, and improvement across the board on the defense, we will be much better in years to come. I actually think the receiving won't be bad, although that's the one area I'd like to see improvement.

Nosce Te Ipsum

January 8th, 2013 at 10:40 AM ^

If we had gone 12-0 and Denard stayed healthy then he would have probably been up for some post season awards, the team probably gets some of the high profile recruits we missed on, and Hoke would be 2-0 against OSU. A bad loss in the title game isn't as bad as a 5 loss season.

StephenRKass

January 8th, 2013 at 11:23 AM ^

Of all the losses, the one to Ohio is the one I would change. Of course, we can't do that. But I'd take 9 - 3 or 10 - 2 with this team and a better bowl instead of lucking into 12 - 0 and being embarassed in the title game. We would not have deserved it, and I wouldn't want it. However, I can understand your POV. My perspective is 9 - 4 (with a win against Ohio) is more appropriate this year (to our talent and ability) than 13 - 1 (with a humiliating loss to Alabama in the title game.)

crazyjoedavola

January 8th, 2013 at 10:29 AM ^

This year I only felt helpless on 2 occasions, during the Alabama game and the Bellomy debacle against Nebraska.  I am looking forward to the days when I don't experience that feeling anymore.  On paper it should happen in 2 years.

artds

January 8th, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^

It really sucked that all 5 of our losses were nationally televised games, while all8 of our wins were not. Every time the nation got a look at us, we looked terrible.

User -not THAT user

January 8th, 2013 at 1:44 PM ^

...have EVER made the final Top 25 poll of a season?

I'm guessing there aren't many.  Considering the STOOPID strength-of-schedule Michigan got tagged with this year, this is probably a good ranking considering Team 133's overall lack of offensive depth.  Looks like the voters at least recognized the S-O-S in the final tabulation.

Bottom line, if you don't either win your conference, beat your rivals, or at least win your bowl game, your season probably isn't going to be regarded as much of a success.  If it hadn't been for the fact that Michigan beat State for the first time since Mike Hart's senior season, there wouldn't be much of a shine to the 2012 campaign at all.  Finishing in the Top 25 despite all that probably should be considered a success of sorts.

Beats going 5-7.  

LSAClassOf2000

January 8th, 2013 at 1:54 PM ^

Our distribution on the final ballot, if anyone is interested. It is an interesting variation, I would think.

 

RANK NO. OF VOTES
15 2
16 1
17 2
18 3
19 2
20 1
21 2
22 5
23 3
24 4
25 4
N/R 29