|11/28/2018 - 11:11am||You are correct. It would…||
You are correct. It would probably take 2 recruiting cycles to get the personnel needed to run an air raid or spread and shred type offense.
|11/27/2018 - 12:41pm||This is really the only…||
This is really the only thing Michigan has to address moving forward. They MUST move to a modern college offense. That means dismissing whoever is the current OC and bringing in a young guy with a modern vision. I don't want to hear about how Michigan had a top 25 offense per the advanced stats or that the offense was effective against OSU. I agree, it was effective but once the defense failed to stop OSU, the offense needed to be able to keep up and it could not.
|11/26/2018 - 10:47pm||I agree. If I'm a football…||
I agree. If I'm a football recruit, there are 3 things that I'm looking for in a college:
|11/26/2018 - 8:53pm||The academic angle is…||
The academic angle is overblown. Michigan does not have the same academic standards when it comes to football that Stanford has. They are recruiting the same guys who Alabama, OSU and Clemson are recruiting. If you are a 5 star recruit and are interested in Michigan, as long as you meet the NCAA's minimum standards, have no criminal history, you're getting into Michigan if that's where you want to play football.
|11/26/2018 - 2:20pm||There were still 18 minutes…||
There were still 18 minutes left in the game when OSU went up 41-19. Michigan responded with a TD drive to make it a two score game with 14 minutes left to go. It was still possible to win the game at that point. Unlikely, yes. But possible. What Michigan needed was a defensive stop and they couldn't get it. After the Campbell TD put OSU up 48-25, Michigan responded again with a TD to make it a two score game with 9 minutes left. A victory was increasingly unlikely, but still within the realm of possibility. But they needed a stop, and once again, they couldn't get it. At that point it was over with OSU going up 55-32 with 7 minutes left.
|11/26/2018 - 1:44pm||It was a one score loss, but…||
It was a one score loss, but some context is needed.
|11/25/2018 - 8:04pm||I predicted a 9-3 record, so…||
I predicted a 9-3 record, so a 10-2 finish exceeded my own expectations on paper. But if you look closer at the 10-2, it's disappointing.
|09/02/2018 - 12:02am||I think the issue most…||
I think the issue most people are having is the offense, which looked identical to last year’s offense, i.e. bad. Patterson looked like a slight upgrade at QB, but not much better than O’Korn/Peters. I still see very little speed on offense and very few playmakers. O line looked about the same. Coaching wise the clock management was beyond awful. The play selection was also questionable.
Yes, MSU and PSU struggled against inferior competition but I think we can attribute that to overlooking the opponent. Both also have a track record of getting better as the season progresses. MSU in particular seems to struggle early before turning it on.
I actually was expecting Michigan to lose. Like you said, it is difficult to open the season against a quality opponent on the road. So no shame in losing, but I wanted to see improvement offensively and I did not see that. And that does not bode well for the rest of the season.
|01/18/2018 - 11:44am||The alternatives are Peters||
The alternatives are Peters who looked flat out terrible in his last outing (and was average at best this past season) and McCaffery who has never played. So, yes people are rightly excited about Patterson because without him Michigan is probabaly looking at another 8-5 type season.
|01/17/2018 - 4:53pm||He's also the losingest coach||
He's also the losingest coach in program history.
|01/12/2018 - 1:42pm||Why would you post a dumb||
Why would you post a dumb thing like this?
|01/09/2018 - 11:22am||#1 QB
#2 Lack of playmakers
Michigan brought in Patterson to alleviate #1. Hopefully he is eligible next year.
Regarding #2, I'm not sure there is a quick fix. The WRs as a group are very dissapointing thus far despite all being very highly rated. The TEs are average in my opinion, no one is really a difference maker. RBs are solid, but again nowhere near what Alabama or Georgia has. Even within the B1G, Wisconsin, Iowa, OSU, PSU and MSU all had/have superior RBs.
|01/04/2018 - 12:14pm||Interesting that the "Peters||
Interesting that the "Peters is the frontrunner" talk has completely vanished from this site.
|01/02/2018 - 9:20pm||I actually think MSU will be||
I actually think MSU will be the favorite to win the East next year (or at a minimum co-favorite with OSU). They return basically everyone. They return Lewerke who is at worst a top 3 QB in the league. They get OSU and Michigan at home and they avoid Wisconsin.
|01/02/2018 - 10:35am||Why is the fanbase toxic?||
Why is the fanbase toxic? Should the fans ignore what was an extremely underwhelming season? Should the fans ignore a total meltodwn to an average at best South Carolina team? Should the fans ignore that Michigan doesn't have a QB? Should the fans ignore that Michigan's 2018 recruiting class is sub par? Should the fans ignore that Michigan's schedule figures to be much more difficult next year? Should the fans ignore that Michigan's offensive playcalling leaves much to be desired?
The fans recognize that Michigan has major problems. That's not toxic, that's viewing things without maize and blue tinted glasses.
|01/02/2018 - 12:15am||I think we will see 8 pretty||
I think we will see 8 pretty soon. The move to 4 teams began when LSU and Alabama played for the national title in 2011. It was the lowest rated title game ever because no one outside the south wanted to see those teams play. Assuming Alabama holds on, we are heading for another boring SEC final that no one outside the south wants to watch.
Look, the B1G went 7-1 in bowls. That matters. Perhaps OSU was not a top 4 team (I thought they deserved a spot over Alabama) but the league is going to finish with 3 top 7 teams, 4 top 10 teams, and 6 top 25 teams. That tells me its champ (OSU) deserved a shot at the national title via an 8 team system.
|01/01/2018 - 10:50pm||Honestly, I think Michigan||
Honestly, I think Michigan does win with O'Korn and I was shocked that Peters came back in when he got his eye poked. I mean Peters was pretty terrible, would O'Korn have been worse? I also guarantee O'Korn tries to pick up that first down with a minute left instead of sliding a yard short.
|01/01/2018 - 5:47pm||No and he never was.||
No and he never was.
|12/11/2017 - 4:09pm||I think people are||
I think people are overthinking this.
If you are Patterson and your goal is to make it to the NFL or at the very least have a good college career, why would you relinquish a starting QB job at Ole Miss to become a backup QB at Michigan? You don't. You go Michigan to start, otherwise you stay at Ole Miss or go elsewhere.
If you're Harbaugh, and you are 100% confident in your QBs (Peters/McCaffery/incoming QB recruits) why bring in Patterson? You aren't. You bring in Patterson because Peters put up pedestrian numbers and Patterson is better than the guys on your roster.
All signs point to Patterson.
|12/08/2017 - 9:26am||Not logical.
Option 1: Patterson stays at Ole Miss where he is the current starter.
Option 2: Patterson transfers to another school where he will start (UCLA for example).
Option 3: Patterson transfers to Michigan where he will be the backup.
There is no scenario where he chooses option 3 given options 1 and 2. If he chooses to go to Michigan and is eligible to play, he is going to be Michigan's starter.
Further, if Harbaugh was truly confident in Peters and/or McCaffery he would not be recruiting Patterson.
|12/07/2017 - 12:22pm||Seems like Tennessee just||
Seems like Tennessee just hired the younger, southern version of Greg Schiano.
|12/07/2017 - 8:06am||Jameis Winston.||
|12/05/2017 - 5:56pm||Re: basketball bullet point||
Re: basketball bullet point #2
I think this is too low a bar. The B1G has only one "blue blood" basketball program in Indiana that has institutional advantages over Michgian. But after Indiana, Michigan sits in a group of schools that is very similar in terms of past success and future ceiling. I believe this tier consists of the following schools in no particular order:
In theory, if IU is operating at maximum capacity, then the schools in the above tier will never be able to surpass IU. However, there is nothing preventing Michigan from being better than the other schools in this tier. That means realistically Michigan should be finishing in the top 2 to top 6 of the B1G every year. It's also unlikely that all 5 of these schools plus Indiana are operating at maximum capacity at the same time, that's why for me Michigan should finish in the top 4 every year.
Note: if you're wondering about Wisconsin or Purdue, I think Michigan has a much higher ceiling than both.
|12/05/2017 - 4:59pm||FSU is at worst a top 5 job,||
FSU is at worst a top 5 job, more like top 3. Oregon is more like a top 20 job.
|12/05/2017 - 2:37pm||16 teams would be the most||
16 teams would be the most exciting system, since otherwise meaningless games late in the season would take on added importance as P5 teams jostle for at large bids while G5 title games would be play in games. It would however devalue the regular season and also involve some very undeserving teams.
Questions to consider:
Do you give autobids to every league? (10 autobids, 6 at large). I don't think you can. The MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt are FCS leagues playing at the FBS level. Even the American and Mountain West lag well behind the much derided SEC East and B1G West. Why should these league champions be included over middle tier P5 teams, who would likely go undefeated if they played in these leagues?
If you don't give autobids to every league (5 autobids for the P5, 11 at large), you start to include some pretty underwhelming teams when you start awarding the at large bids even if you give one bid to the highest rated G5 team (this year UCF). Washington, Stanford, and Notre Dame would all likely receive at large bids. Michigan State, LSU, Washington State and Oklahoma State, would be among the teams vying for the final at large bids. Even among the teams that would receive the first at large bids (Alabama, Wisconsin, Auburn, Penn State, Miami) there are questions.
That's why 8 teams is ideal in my view (5 auto, 2 at large, 1 for the highest rated G5 team). You make it possible but not a guarantee for a MAC, CUSA, or Sun Belt to get in. You remove the subjectivess from the decision (win a P5 league and you are in). And you maintain two spots for worthy non champion P5 teams.
|12/04/2017 - 1:16pm||Agree. His numbers were||
Agree. His numbers were largely in line with Speight's 2017 numbers. No one seemed upset when Speight transferred. Peters was fine, certainly nothing special.
Further, to those worried that it might upset the current QBs, consider this:
If Peters wins the job next season, he's the starting QB for at least 2 and probably 3 more seasons. That leaves McCaffery with only 1, maybe 2 seasons to start. Very unlikely that he sticks around. Alternatively, McCaffery could end up beating Peters for the job this offseason and seizing control of the starting job for the next 2-3 seasons. Peters is then likely transferring out.
|11/30/2017 - 7:08pm||Miles would be a bad||
Miles would be a bad hire.
1. UT needs either an elite coach or someone that runs an innovative offense to make up for its disadvantages relative to Georgia and Florida. That isn't Miles.
After Hoke was fired, Miles was discussed as a potential replacement at Michigan. The consensus was overwhelmingly negative because of points 1,2, and 3. 3 years later and he would be a good hire at Tennessee?
|11/30/2017 - 12:20am||Let's review the names that||
Let's review the names that have turned UT down or taken other jobs:
Gruden - unknown if he was offered or interested in coaching again but he was laughably UT's #1 choice and he's still working for ESPN, which implies UT got turned down
|11/30/2017 - 12:09am||I think bronxblue is mostly||
I think bronxblue is mostly correct. In a vacuum, UT is a much better job than Purdue. More tradition, more resources, better recruiting base, etc. In theory, you can win a national title at UT and you probably won't at Purdue.
However, UT plays in the SEC East with Georgia and Florida so a national title while possible, is not likely since the path runs through them. Both have just as much if not more resources. They have far better recruiting bases (state lines matter in recruiting). And they have also had more recent success. (Since UT's last SEC East title, UGA has won it 3 times, UF has won it 4 times.) Things do ebb and flow but right now Georgia is on the verge of a playoff bid under Smart. (UT last contended for a title in 2001). I think they are trending up. Likewise, Florida just hired the best available coach not named Kelly or Frost so I think it's safe to say they will be winning 9+ games a year from now on under Mullen.
And therein lies the problem for UT. If UGA and UF are handling their business (hiring a good coach, recruiting well enough in Georgia and Florida respectively), it doesn't matter what UT does since both will have more talent to work with. Even during the Fulmer era, UT had a losing record against UF. And UT's record against UGA was inflated because UGA was mediocre for much of that stretch. That series changed when UGA hired Richt.
On the other hand, you can make the case that Purdue can be the #3 team in the B1G West. Perhaps not yet, but eventually. So if UT is the #3 school in the SEC East and Purdue is the #3 team in the B1G West, is UT really that much of a step up from Purdue?
Now if UT was content on being the #3 team in the SEC East, the job would be much more attractive. However, they turned on Jones after 4 years, two years owhich featured two straight 9 win seasons in years 3 and 4. They essentially vetoed the Schiano hire and it appears that they are now doing the same as UT is looking at Doeren. This is a fanbase that has warped expectations.
I mean, if UT was really that great of a job, coaches wouldn't be turning it down.
|11/29/2017 - 12:17pm||Nebraska has been figured||
Nebraska has been figured out. It's Frost.
|11/29/2017 - 11:58am||He is. Could be a nice||
He is. Could be a nice rebound for Purdue too. Would he take it over ASU? Ceiling at ASU is higher than at Purdue, but I would not underestimate the "when mama calls" factor.
|11/28/2017 - 10:17pm||Not only that, but latest||
Not only that, but latest reports have Gundy remaining at Oklahoma State.
I mean, clearly, UT offered Schiano because there wasn't much interest in the job.
|11/28/2017 - 4:16pm||So dealing with two schools||
So dealing with two schools with superior resources is easier than dealing with one?
My advice to Gundy would be the cautionary tale of Bret Bielema. He left the B1G West's #1 job for the SEC West's #6 job. He could have likely retired in Madison seeing that Wisconsin wins 10+ games every year no matter who coaches the team. Instead, he'll be lucky to find another power 5 job in the near future. Oklahoma State is the Big 12's #3 job. Tennessee is the SEC's #7 job.
Don't go chasing waterfalls.
|11/28/2017 - 4:08pm||Yesterday, he was saying||
Yesterday, he was saying Jason Witten (LOL) was going to be the next Tennessee coach. I think that tells you enough about Clay Travis.
|11/28/2017 - 12:19pm||Who talks like that||
Who talks like that (MEEECHIGAN)?
A guy by the name of Fielding Yost.
|11/27/2017 - 11:05pm||Question. If you grew up in||
Question. If you grew up in Pontiac and were a Pistons fan, what made you switch to the Cavs?
|11/27/2017 - 6:21pm||That largely depends on||
That largely depends on Georgia and Florida. To win 9-10 games a year UT must:
Beat whoever they play in the non conference, which is sometimes a high level opponent.
They also much beat one of Alabama, UGA, or UF every year.
They also must beat their other SEC West opponent every year no matter who it is.
They have to beat South Carolina every year.
They must never be upset by the likes of Missouri, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky.
That's hard to do when you are not on the Georgia, Florida, Alabama level and South Carolina is on your level. Remember, before this year Georgia hasn't been overly dominant the past decade and Florida has been mediocre. UT still couldn't beat either of them with any consistency. Now consider that Georgia is trending up under Smart. UF just hired the best coach available not named Kelly or Frost, and Saban will probably be at Alabama for the next 4-5 years.
Given all that, I don't think it's realistic to win 9-10 games a year. Quite frankly, the Butch Jones era is probably what the next 5 years will look like under the next coach, winning 7-8 games a year most years with the occasional 9-10 game season. UT has massive resources so they will never completely fade away, but winning the SEC and getting into the playoff isn't happening unless you hire a Chip Kelly/transformational coach. I think UT fans are delusional and the response to the Schiano hire was an examploe of it but I also think they recognized that Schiano or a Schiano level hire isn't going to propel UT to the top of the SEC East. Hence the delusions of grandeur in the form of Gruden.
|11/27/2017 - 2:55pm||I'm pretty sure next year's||
I'm pretty sure next year's MSU game will be a night game.
|11/27/2017 - 10:36am||The PSU prediction (Michigan||
The PSU prediction (Michigan won by 39 in 2016 so they should easily dominate PSU in 2017)was really one of the most bizarre predictions I have even seen. It wasn't just a fringe prediction either, that seemed to be the consensus here.
|11/27/2017 - 10:32am||He turned them down.||
He turned them down.
|11/27/2017 - 10:31am||Additionally, back when||
Additionally, back when Tennessee was rolling, they could go also into North Carolina or South Carolina and get whoever they wanted since Clemson (just 3 hours away from Knoxville) was mediocre, South Carolina was a joke, and UNC and NC State were basketball focused.
Flash forward to today and Clemson is one of the best programs in the country, better than Tenn ever was. Today, if you're a top recruit in NC or SC, you're probably going to Clemson. South Carolina has been down post Spurrier but it now has the same ceiling as Tennessee. And while NC State and UNC are still basketball schools, they are far more competitive than they used to be and offer in state talent a viable option relative to going out of state.
|11/26/2017 - 11:27pm||From a pure football||
From a pure football standpoint, I would not have hired Schiano.
But more fascinating is the disconnect between Tennessee's perception and more specifically the fans' perception of UT's football program and the perception of the program by the coaching industry. Does anyone really think Schiano was their first choice? Let's look at the top candidates this offseason:
Jon Gruden? LOL
Chip Kelly? Chose UCLA over Florida, didn't consider UT
Frost? Likely choosing Nebraska over Florida, didn't consider UT
Mullen? Chose Florida over UT
Campbell? Reportedly turned down UT
Taggart? Unsure if offered, but Oregon is a better job
Norvell? Could probably wait for a better job since he's destined to become the next hottest Group of 5 coach with Frost likely heading to Nebraska.
Some other candidates:
Petrino? Probably wouldn't voluntarily leave Lousivlle considering they gave him a second chance. And if you're going to say no to Schiano on moral grounds then you're going to look pretty hypocritical hiring one of the sleaziest coaches in college football.
Sumlin? Could actually be a good hire, but UT just fired a coach who won 9 games in back to back seasons (the first time it has been done since the Fulmer era) after one bad season. Do you really think Sumlin who couldn't consitently do it a a school with far more resources is going to exceed that? It also appears he's head to Arizona State, which means yet another coach turning down UT.
Kiffin? Pretty much caused the beginning of UT's slide into irrelevance following his one year train wreck at UT, and then flamed out at one of the top 3 jobs in college football. Considering the list of candidates that have probably turned UT down, I could actually see UT hiring him.
Strong? Similar to Kiffin in that he flamed out at a school with far more rersources. If he couldn't do it at Texas, why would be be able to do it at Tennessee?
Again, Schiano was an uninspiring hire but Tenneessee fans are delusional if they think there are significantly better candidates out there that UT hasn't already offered.
|11/26/2017 - 6:32pm||It's a done deal. Mullen to||
It's a done deal. Mullen to Florida confirms it.
|11/24/2017 - 6:14pm||Frost is heading to Nebraska.||
Frost is heading to Nebraska.
|11/22/2017 - 11:20am||The decision to schedule ND||
The decision to schedule ND (and literally pay money to do so) is even more baffling because Michigan would have had Arkansas at home. Considering Arkansas will be undergoing a coaching transition, Michigan would have likely pummeled them and gotten major credit for beating an SEC opponent. And while Michigan's SOS would have likely taken a hit with Arkansas on the schedule, the overall impact would be negligible with MSU, PSU, OSU and Wisconsin (all figure to be top 25 teams next year) still on the schedule. I sincerely hope that this is the end of playing ND.
|11/21/2017 - 4:32pm||Yes, and it is widely mocked||
Yes, and it is widely mocked as one of the worst contracts ever.
Harbaugh is a great coach and the best Michigan could get in the next 5 years, but what's wrong with his current contract?
|11/21/2017 - 2:44pm||Michigan also hosts Nebraska,||
Michigan also hosts Nebraska, which may be coached by Scott Frost. That could be yet another tough game.
|11/21/2017 - 12:10pm||Re: #2
So far, it's either
So far, it's either Purdue or Indiana. Considering Michigan went to OT against Indiana, I would say Purdue was Michigan's best overall performance relative to the competition played.
|11/20/2017 - 11:07pm||Leaving the B1G would be the||
Leaving the B1G would be the worst decision the Univeristy of Michigan could ever make. Academically, athletically, culturally, geographically, etc., Michigan is a perfect fit in the B1G. If you could engineer the perfect B1G school from scratch, it would be Michigan. But I'll play along.
Option #1: Independent Footbal/Power 5 Non-Football
Full Independent is a non starter in this day and age but this hybrid option still is highly problematic. First of all, Michigan would be lucky to get a quarter of the revenue it receives now as a B1G school (about $50MM annually over the next 5 years). Texas got around $11MM for the Longhorn Network and they are located in a massive, rapidly growing state with a large fanbase that will only get larger. ND gets around $15MM from NBC.
Setting aside this breach in fiduciary duty, going Independent would put Michigan on the path to becoming Notre Dame Lite. As soon as ND loses 2 games, their season is over with no conference or division titles to play for. ND does pop up every few years with a good team, but most years ND is average, overrated, out of sight and out of mind. That would be Michigan's fate considering Michigan has contended for an NC just twice since 1997. Michigan would also be blacklisted from scheduling any B1G teams as an Independent (at least in the near future) so say goodbye to the MSU and OSU rivalries.
Option #2: Join a Power 5 league
Certainly, leagues would be clamoring to add Michigan, but are there other leagues that are attractive to Michigan?
Michigan has nothing in common with the Big 12 and the sparsely populated flyover states of West Virginia, Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Texas is the only Big 12 school near Michigan's level, but Texas would be a middle of the road B1G school. Michigan would also never join a league that is destined to break up within 10 years.
Similarly, Michigan has nothing in common with most of SEC schools or the rural South. Really hard to see Michigan wanting to associate with Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky and Ole Miss.
Michigan has the most in common with the Pac 12 (Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA, Washington) but traveling to and from the West Coast for every single game would probably not be best from an expense or competition standpoint.
That leaves the ACC, which is a mix of the South (bad fit) and Northeast (better fit). However, ACC schools are much smaller than Michigan and much more into basketball. If you're upset about playing Maryland and Rutgers, just wait for thrilling games against apathetic fanbases in Pitt, Syracuse, Wake Forest, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Miami (when they aren't good) and Georgia Tech all in half empty stadiums.
As you can see, these are all bad options. The Pac 12 would be my choice, that's still such a terrible option relative to staying in the B1G, you know the conference that MIchigan helped establish and build over the course of 100 years. The conference where Michigan is still the #1 school despite struggling in football the past decade.
Anyway, since this is fantasy land, I'd like to proppose a fantasy conference that I actually wouldn't mind seeing Michigan join should every conference break up. I call it the Big Public:
These are really Michigan's athletic/academic peers. Of note, 6 of these are B1G schools, yet another reason why Michigan belongs in the B1G.
|11/13/2017 - 12:33pm||They were already declining||
They were already declining in the Texas centric Big 12. If Nebraska were to rejoin the Big 12, they wouldn't suddenly out recruit Texas or Oklahoma for Texas recruits. They would be on the Oklahoma State/TCU/Baylor (pre-scandal) tier and likely behind them in the pecking order for Texas recruits.
Nebraska is a difficult job recruiting wise, but in the B1G West you should easily be able to match/slightly exceed Wisconsin's recruiting (top 30-35) which is currently the best in the West. So if you can build the most talented roster in the division, you can contend for the division every single year. If you can win the West with no more than 1 loss, then it's a one game playoff vs. a team from the East. Win that game and you are in the top 4. Much easier path for Nebraska in the B1G West than in the Big 12.