August 20th, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^ what they think.  We will begin to know what is real in 15 days (or 14 days and a wake up for my fellow servicemembers/military brats).

Mitch Cumstein

August 20th, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^

I actually don't think that is that bad.  I mean, honest expectations I don't think we will be ranked at the end of they year, and 41 is just out of the teams recieving votes.  41st ranked team in the country probably has 7-8 wins.  I'll take it.


August 20th, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^

There are what, 30 bowl games?  That's 60 teams that play in the postseason.  If you're the #41 team, you'll be playing in a bowl.  That's a fair prediction.  I think we have the potential to do better than that, but coming off two straight losing seasons, we're not going to get a ton of respect.

Not a Blue Fan

August 20th, 2010 at 5:39 PM ^

Uh, I hate to be "that guy", but this preview and ranking doesn't seem to account for the loss of Woolfolk. They list him in the depth chart and they also make of a point of his importance, saying:

CB Troy Woolfolk, who bounced between cornerback and safety earlier in his career, needs to be a leader with Warren off early to the NFL.

They also have JT Turner listed on the depth chart, although as we all know he was unlikely to contribute much this year due to conditioning.


August 20th, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^

OSU fans are always "that guy" when it comes to the University of Michigan.  It's the nature of the rivalary.  I would be much more worried if OSU fans were telling Michigan fans how great of a coach we have, because it would indicate that you want Michigan to keep him. 

As it stands now, I think rival fans are scared of what will happen if RR gets enough time to fully implement his system with competent personnel, and would love to see him fired before he gets the chance.  Tressel is 8-1 against Michigan, but Cooper was 2-10-1.  So Tressel is in a situation similar to that of Carr when Tressel took over OSU, except that Tressel didn't have to rebuild an anachronistic team, while new coach RR did.  

In other words, Tressel, as Carr was, is the successful coach who is slowly becoming an anachronism, while RR is the more modern coach hoping to succeed against a coach who has been successful but is failing to adjust his strategy as the game evolves.  Tressel's misuse of Pryor is an example of how the game may be evolving past him.

Trust me when I say this: Michigan fans were just as confident during the Cooper years as OSU fans are now, and OSU fans were even more disenchanted.  It was so bad for OSU that fans left at the end of the third quarter during the Heisman Pose game, and it was only four years into his tenure.  I remember marvelling at the sea of scarlet and gray leaving the stadium a quarter early and wondering how The Game could have ever become so much like any other game that people would leave that early.

Anyway, the dynamics of the rivalry can change at the proverbial drop of a hat.  AFAIC, it's just a matter of whether the scarlet and gray hat hits the ground this year or next year.

So, go ahead and be "that guy."

Not a Blue Fan

August 20th, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^

Honestly, I'm not the least bit scared of RR having time to implement his system. We handled Oregon just fine, and they run a very similar system. And before you say "BUT FLORIDA...", remember that it was Florida's DE's using our tackles as turnstiles that ruined us that game. I would like to see RR stay, because I think he doesn't 'get' rivalries (a la Cooper). If I had my druthers, though, I'd really like to see Harbaugh up there, because I think that he could make the rivalry competitive (id est meaningful) again.


August 20th, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^

Let's not read too much into the Rose Bowl win over Oregon.  OSU had about a month to prepare, and Masoli had a particularly bad game throwing the ball.  Some of that credit goes to OSU, but some goes to the guy just struggling in the air.  The rushing stats were about the same, and Oregon showed some life after that impressive start by OSU.

The argument against people "getting" rivalries is one of the most innane ones I have ever heard - if "getting" a rivalry means you act like MSU and care only about the UM game all year and nothing else (even if it means letting convicted felons back on the team for that game), then fine, RR might not "get" a rivalry.  But he understands, just like Cooper, than UM and OSU are two of the preeminent programs in all of college football and they usually win the Big 10.  He understands that OSU is better now and that UM's success will be measured by how they play in that game, and that is all I expect in a coach - to make his team better.


August 21st, 2010 at 2:13 AM ^

Agreed.  The "doesn't get the rivalry" thing is pretty idiotic.  If RR had fully understood the rivalry, would that have magically turned Threet into a D1 QB?  Would it have kept Molk healthy last year?  Would it have resolved the problems with our decimated defense?  It seems that it is a lot easier to "get" the rivalry if you are on the more talented team.  Also, did Lloyd "get" the rivalry during the 90's, but stopped "getting" the rivalry around 2001?


August 20th, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^

I'm happy with #41, but I am tired of every national article with the word Michigan in it containing a prediction of how many victories RR needs to "save his job."  I think writers harp on this because they don't actually have to do any research.  All they have to do is put "RR" and "save his job" in the same sentence and they can milk it for a paragraph or two.

Back to #41: the number that really counts is the one at the end of the season. 


August 20th, 2010 at 5:55 PM ^

Im sick of reading articles that pretty much say the same thing.  I personally dont pay any attention to preseason rankings because they mean jack. None of these columnists know how a certain team is going to be, the coaches dont even know. Talk to me about rankings after week four. 


August 20th, 2010 at 7:01 PM ^

41 is solid, considering the team's performance in the last 2 years. It's good to see that rivals isn't underrating us as much as some of the other websites. Think we should have been higher though if it was written when Woolfolk was healthy. I'm just ready for the season, it's time to shut the haters up.


August 21st, 2010 at 4:22 AM ^

I don't want to be debbie downer, but we won 1 Big Ten game last year. We still have a young team. We have not seen the emergence of a "Super Star" on a game to game basis. We haven't show a running game. We played badly on defense. I think they gave us a really good rating all things considered. 


Go Blue