Way too early 2013 College Football Rankings from Andy Staples

Never too early.  Never too early!

I think we have a tougher set up this year than last. That said, we win it all.

What's the line on the spring game?

Man, I feel like The Game is going to have that feeling back this year. I am getting chills thinking about it. Not that its importance or significance ever lacked for fans on either side of the rivalry, but this year has the makings of a big showdown with huge implications (unless those implications are a rematch in the BTCG, which is rather likely). Last year featured two good teams and a great match, but it was overshadowed a bit by Michigan's subpar year and OSU's meaningless season.

No mention of Sparty in the article. Must not be an intergalactic preseason poll?

I think this coming year will be very telling for the future of the program under the current staff. The great coaching staffs find ways to come out on top consistently, even with questions on the team. We did that the first year, and I'd say we shot par last year. We have some holes to fill definitely, and the lines are still young and/or without depth. But we'll have questions every year. We probably won't face maybe the toughest schedule in the nation again, and I don't think the O will be in a frozen state of not knowing it's identity. This is now year three and it's time to see some of the young talent develop and show up consistently in big games. A sub par year is not the end of the world, but there are no teams on the schedule I think we cannot beat (like Bama last year). It's time the team steps up, makes a statement, and starts restoring UM to the top of the conference and nation on a consistent basis. I'm hopeful, I'm still unsure they get it done. I see us dropping 2 games next year, and while very good, still miss the Rose Bowl.

...and potentially generous evaluation. Much more realistic than the Bennett/Rittenberg 2013 B1G Power Ranking listing Michigan at number 5 in conference (published just prior to the Lewan announcement, FWIW).

Your last sentence is rather annoying. Are you implying that Oregon/Bama/TAMU aren't 3 of the best teams in the country?

That schedule is pathetic.

Without knowing much about the teams ranked ahead of us, I think 12 is too high for now.  We may certainly earn it by the end of the year, but we still need to prove we can have a running game post-Denard.  We'll have 3 new guys on the line, which may actually be a good thing, but we'll have a bunch of unproven guys in the back field, unless Toussaint makes a full recovery.  I'd put us in the high teens or low 20s.

Anything from #10-20 would be reasonable. The Outback was probably favorable to pollsters as they know an 8-4 UM could go down to the wire with a 10-2 SC. Year 3 is the classic bellwether for a program and we'll have 2+ Hoke classes with a manageable schedule. Other than Denard, the personnel losses are minimal for a top tier program (ie, 2-3 draftees and Kovacs brain). Defense should be very solid but probably short a few playmakers to become a juggernaut. Offense should be productive and more dependable than 2012 if interior OL gels. Special teams will be solid.

My only real question is how the OL will perform.  Yes, there will be two good, seasoned players at OT, one of whom is likely a top 10 draft pick.  However, the inexperience on the interior is what worries me.  Talented, yes.  But also a tad green.

 

As for the rest of the team, I think we should be quite solid.

 

The passing game was shown to be pretty good once DG took over as the unquestioned starter.  And, the receiving corps should be just as good, if not better, with Darboh and Chesson complementing Dileo and Gallon.  No disrespect to 'Tree, but he won't be too hard to replace.  Please, more Funchess!

 

The running game will depend largely on the OL, with some aid from a good passing game.

 

Defensively, we have Greg Mattison, who only took a group of kids that even Vince Lombardi couldn't win with* and made them into the team's strength immediately in 2011 when he came back.  There is a nice mix of experience and talent, along with some depth on D, and I think they'll be even better this year than the last two years.

 

Special teams has been really good except punt returns (why all the fair catches?).  I'm thinking it's just a matter of time before 'Fleet breaks one for 6.

 

Now let's just hope the team stays healthy all season long!

 

*paraphrasing Rich Rod

#12 is pretty generous until we prove we can run the ball effectively in a post-Denard world.  This is the big question.  I know we are all sweating out Derrick Green (me, too), but the bigger issue is the play of the young blue-chip O-linemen.  It's been a while since we saw a Michigan line blowing people off the line and it will do wonders for our running game when that happens again.  

I personally think OSU and Michigan tread water as far as skill (that doesn't mean their records won't be different, but the talent level should be about equal). A bounce of the ball here or a bounce of the ball there, the rankings of those two teams seems fine to me. Nebraska should still be solid, especially on offense, and I think NW is going to hover in the general area where they are ranked.

But even outside of that, MSU still has a pretty damn good defense that will keep them in pretty much every game. Wiscy looks like they found a pretty good QB and they still have an O-line and a good RB. Penn St is a big unknown, but O'Brian seems to have them at least respectable. Indiana and Minn are both on upward trends to be at least not terrible.

So overall I think the B1G will be much improved next year. Still won't be the greatest conferense, but won't have everyone saying "the B1G is way down", which will be nice.

It's "early" in because the season doesn't start for a few months but all the upperclassmen who are leaving have left and there's only a handful of incoming freshman that will make an immediate impact from day one so I doubt the ranking will change that much even after NSD

I'd say #12 is a little too generous at this point. There is a ton of talent on the field next year, but it will be mostly very young and/or unproven. The O-Line situation is much better with Lewan coming back, but its still a question mark. A lot of RS freshman will have to grow up in a hurry. The D-Line could be very good if Pip starts to show his potential, or it could just be serviceable again. Wideouts outside of Gallon are a big question mark. Who will be the running back if Fitz isn't 100%? Will Derrick Green even be an option? Will Countess be ready to go? Too many question marks at this point to be considered the #12 team, in my opinion.

Not sure why anybody thinks #12 is too high. If you take the same team from last year and played next year's schedule, the team probably goes 10-3. If you cut down on the turnovers, it can go 12-1. In college football, it is all about the schedule. The schedule says 2013 Michigan will be better than 2012 Michigan. And if 2012 Michigan was still a top 25 team. 2013 Michigan is easily a top 15 team.

I would be disappointed if we finish 2013 with fewer wins than 2012 based on schedule alone. I'm looking at 10 wins this season and ending up with around a number 12 ranking is probably about right, especially if we win our bowl game.

It will be tough winning the big 10 this year but we will be in the hunt within our division and if we make it to the championship game, it should be a close game, probably against OSU, especially if we beat them at home. As always there will be key wins needed at home against NE and on the road against sparty! Northwestern may be tough to beat on the road.