Predict where Michigan is ranked on the preseason AP and USA Today Coaches Poll

Submitted by ThadMattasagoblin on August 1st, 2012 at 7:48 PM

I'd say 9th just because they're going to want us in the top 10 for the first weekend matchup.


snarling wolverine

August 2nd, 2012 at 12:11 AM ^

Fulmer (if he was the guy who voted us 4th) alone did not cost us the vote.  Even if he'd voted us second, we still would have lost the vote (just by two points instead of four).  Nebraska got 32 first-place votes to our 30.  Many coaches who had us #1 going into the bowls switched us to #2 (and in one case, #4).

Chester Cheetah

August 1st, 2012 at 8:17 PM ^

Does anybody actually think we deserve a preseason top ten ranking? I just don't see how we should be ranked that high since we have such a difficult schedule and we have some questions on defense.  Thoughts?


August 1st, 2012 at 10:36 PM ^

Unfortunately, I think many of the "experts" predict how they think teams will end up, as opposed to ranking the teams based on perceived preseason ability. At the end of the season, the experts want to be able to point out to their colleagues and to fans that they predicted the end result. Hence, why they factor in schedule sometimes in their just-for-fun preseason rankings. 


August 1st, 2012 at 8:50 PM ^

an first team All-American center, an honorable mention All-Conference receiver, TE and DE, and a second team All-Conference DT. Among the top tenish teams, that's not really that bad.

We return an All-American QB, an elite LT, a thousand yard rusher, and are moving a dude who's 6'4 with a 4.5 40 to WR. On defense we return eight starters from a top ten scoring defense, with a former five star expected to step in at the most important lost position.

We might end up being nowhere near the top ten by the end of the season, but there's a lot of reason for optimism at this point, IMO.


August 2nd, 2012 at 11:33 AM ^

I don't think coaches care about ratings or page views.  They probobably don't even know what 'page views' are.

As for writers, yeah, they want attention, but I don't think an AP writer in Arizona is going to get more attention because #2 Alabama play #8 Michigan as opposed to #24 Michigan.  That game will get plenty of attention regardless.


August 1st, 2012 at 8:27 PM ^

Can't start new thread.

I find it funny how Bryan Fischer made the following statement:

"Fence builder: Ohio State, with seven commitments from the state of Ohio".

When we have more Ohio commitments than they do, by 2.

Brian has the link posted below on the side bar labeled "Halfway to Signing Day: Big Ten Edition".



August 1st, 2012 at 8:40 PM ^

9th AP, 11th Coaches

Seems like the AP always wants to give us a break while the coaches are always behind the curve if we do post a good record.


August 1st, 2012 at 9:26 PM ^

I will go with 8th in the Coaches' Poll, 11th in the AP Poll. 

Even though we lost some vital pieces (Martin, Molk, Van Bergen and Koger stand out on this list), we return many others (a shade over a dozen starters, if I am not mistaken), and they are  going into a second year in this system with players with great upside potential coming up behind them at several positions. There's a good reason for optimism regarding our preseason ranking. 

Perkis-Size Me

August 1st, 2012 at 9:31 PM ^

I see us inside the top 10, but it'd be too high in my opinion. Simply too many questions on the defensive line, most likely will have an unproven RB starting for the first week or so, and while the offensive line will be fine, there's no depth behind the starters.

I see Team 133 being a much better team in terms of grasping the play book and being more fundamentally sound, but with an overall worse record, maybe 8-4 or 9-3.