Sporting News: Michigan Football Pre-Season Ranking

Submitted by Trauber19 on June 24th, 2010 at 1:15 PM


I've subscribed to The Sporting News for a long, long time.  I became unhappy with it when they made it just like ESPN the Magazine, coming out once every two weeks, and even the same format.  I am starting to become disgusted with it, every time I read something David Curtis has written....I'm at the point where I think he is almost as worthless as Drew Sharp.  No way do we finish this poorly again.



June 24th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^

This is even more questionable to put as at a C+ for OLine especially in their own article it says:

Bringing back an experienced offensive line should help, too.

They claim their prediction may be "wrong" and give the OLine as an argument for it. They can't even agree with their own analysis.


June 24th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^

Threetidan was not a c-.  I try never to bash Michigan players (or ex-players), but that combo was nothing short of an f (or D-).  I can't think of a major D1 program that had objectively worse starting QBs over the past few years.  I really am not trying to slam these guys, but their collective performance all season (except for Sheridan's one Tom Brady-esque game), was pretty bad.  Other teams pretty much said that they stacked the line because they knew that we couldn't throw. 

As for the c-, putting aside my usual homerism, if you look at the qb stats for last year, they are not pretty.  Also, while I expect a good amount of development from both of our qbs, they will both only be true sophs.  Here's hoping that they can prove Sporting News wrong.


June 24th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^

"Grading the positions: QB (C-), RB (C), WR/TE (B-), OL (C+), DL (D), LB (C), DB (D), ST (C-)"

Umm... I think I'll just go ahead and agree to disagree with this guy.


June 24th, 2010 at 2:36 PM ^

I'll buy C for the LBs and D for the DBs, but A D for the DL is absurd. Most teams would be happy with Martin, Campbell, Van Bergen, and Roh. 

C- for the QBs is even more absurd. Forcier was an adequate starter last year even when banged up, most players improve most between their first and second years in the program, and Robinson looks like a plausible starter now.

C+ for the OL is low assuming Molk is healthy. 

Tha Quiet Storm

June 24th, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^

A "D" for the d-line is completely insane.  They are a little young, but with Martin, RVB, and Roh, you have three players who could potentially be all-B10 at the end of the year.  I think a "B" or "B-" would be a little more realistic.


June 24th, 2010 at 1:22 PM ^

It's ok.  I love it when the underdogs win (unless they beat us, of course).  I'm going to enjoy hearing everyone not expect much from us and then watch us win.



June 24th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^

There is no way the OL should rank at a C+.  They have experience and Molk and Schilling are primed for great seasons.  Plus the DL a D?  This guy just wants to pile on.  Sweet article. 


June 24th, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^

You know, I get laziness.  But 10 minutes of searching mgoblog could have given him the information necessary to (even ranked in the 70s) give some sort of legitimate assessment.

spam and beans

June 24th, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^

When I saw his grade for the O-Line at a C+, I stopped worrying about what else was written.  What is a "Gutless Prediction"?  It is a prediction based on what was, rather than figuring out what will be.


June 24th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^

I didn't see Iowa State on that list and they are horrendous.  I live in Des Moines and that team is a joke.  This guy doesn't have a clue either.  Now I'm going to be pissed the rest of the day. 


June 24th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^

When the national press keeps saying you will suck it adds more us against the world aspect to the season.  After reading his breakdown, he didn't seem to spend too much time researching. A "D" for our DL?

I know we wont win a NC this year, but I recall the 97 squad having some downer pre-season buzz and that turned out ok. 


June 24th, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^

This is nothing new to us on this board.  All we have to do is go out there and prove everyone wrong, until we do, were going to hear the same song and dance. 

Its very popular to be down on our program right now, little do they know that the sleeping giant is about to awake. 

A good start with UConn is what we need right out of the gates.  I think that game will calm a lot of our nerves with a great performance.  Then the MSU game will be the measuring stick moving forward in Big 10 play.

Bring on Sept 4 please, lets show the doubters what were made of.


June 24th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^

going into this year, than sky high (like last year).......RR will be better off with everything going on this year to have MEDIA expectations low. Now, that said, we all know what OUR expectations are. Just add Sporting News to the "Crow dinner invitation list"

There will be alot attending.........maybe we should serve the CROW at the Big House???

Elno Lewis

June 24th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^

but your only ammo would be 'potential', cuz that is what we have at this time.


try to remember, writers don't write to be right, but to be read. 


Go Blue!


June 24th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^

Looks like he is expecting losses against ND and UConn.  If that happens, then 5-7 is probably as good as it gets.  I'm expecting UM to take both those games.


June 24th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^

... in Michigan.

We will end up in the top 25.

The real news is that MSU is #69.  All the drivel about Dantonio pre-season last year, and he ends up 6-7, which is either the final record or the average jail time for half the team.

No championship ring last year, but Sparty second-teamers were seen rockin' this awesome techno-jewelry around campus.



June 24th, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^

wow 71st, they really don't like you guys.  OSU, And 8th in the big ten? Wisconsin, Iowa, PSU, Purdue, Northwestern, MSU, UM, IU, UI and Minnesota.


June 24th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^

I've seen plenty of comments around here that people are scared of the ND game in South Bend this year.  I'll admit I really don't know much about your prospects for the 2010 season - I've spent my whole offseason studying the minutiae surrounding UM's own question marks.  However, I know you don't have a proven quarterback and are trying to transition to a radically different offense than the one that the guys on the current roster were recruited for/are used to.  This smells too much like UM 2008 to me.  My question is this:  Why is there reason for optimism in South Bend regarding their game against the Wolverines this year?


June 24th, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^

that prevent any real accurate substantive predictions as to this upcoming season.  QB and defensive secondary.  Michigan's QBs are not a C-, that is not accurate, that is Tate hating.  Forcier struggled at times, but lost in the shuffle of some of his youthful transgressions was some pretty incredible poise from a true freshman, and an accurate-when-he-needs-to-be arm.  Along with Robinson's apparent progress, I really like our QB setup right now.

As to the secondary, it is just too early to tell.  There needs to be some serious contributions from both true and redshirt freshman in our secondary for our defense to hold up.  The defense will only be as good as its weakest link, evidenced by the inadequecy of Michigan's defense despite ever so frequent B. Graham smashes.  The secondary is the absolute key.

I like M over UConn in convincing enough fashion to get people talking.  I also fear South Bend pretty intensely this year, that one will be dicey.

I do know that MSU has a pretty good size ass-kickin coming their way this year, that one I am anxious to see...