T1B

Michigan is in deep trouble because they aren't producing big talent, they aren't producing top recruiting classes and they aren't winning games.

The jury is very definitely still out on DickRod, also.

Meanwhile, Ohio St keeps pulling in top recruiting classes, and they keep putting large numbers of players into the NFL. Along the way, it's becoming more and more difficult to imagine Michigan beating them. 7 out of 8 is certainly going to become 8 out of 9, and other than for sheer blind faith I see no end in sight.

Like ND and USC, Michigan's sole barometer has to be Ohio St, and the gap between them is only growing larger.

Then there's the fact that Penn St and Michigan St also look like they're on the rise.

Add it all up and I'd say there's more than sufficient reason to think Michigan is in deep trouble. The forecast in Ann Arbor is looking very Lincoln-ish.

Van wrote: Miami (The U): 1 player, in the 6th round. My, how the mighty have fallen.

Florida St: Only 1 player, with no 1st rounders. Wtf happened to FSU??

Damn both are in the top 3 with the most active players.

Kind of surprise Gano and Carr didnt get drafted.

Cant believe FSU got out drafted by Abilene Christian from D2

Van wrote:USC: 11 players (half their team! ), tops in the nation (behind only Iowa), including three 1st rounders (behind only Iowa), which was also tops in the nation. (Behind Iowa.) USC had 13 draft eligible players. 11 of them got drafted. Uh huh.

HOW DO YOU LOSE TO OREGON ST WITH AN NFL TEAM???

Van wrote:Michigan is in deep trouble because they aren't producing big talent, they aren't producing top recruiting classes and they aren't winning games.

The jury is very definitely still out on DickRod, also.

Meanwhile, Ohio St keeps pulling in top recruiting classes, and they keep putting large numbers of players into the NFL. Along the way, it's becoming more and more difficult to imagine Michigan beating them. 7 out of 8 is certainly going to become 8 out of 9, and other than for sheer blind faith I see no end in sight.

Like ND and USC, Michigan's sole barometer has to be Ohio St, and the gap between them is only growing larger.

Then there's the fact that Penn St and Michigan St also look like they're on the rise.

Add it all up and I'd say there's more than sufficient reason to think Michigan is in deep trouble. The forecast in Ann Arbor is looking very Lincoln-ish.

i wish i read a lot more national publications so i could have an equally uninformed opinion of usc football as you have of michigan. michigan's fine. that they didn't put many players into this one year's draft has more to do with carr sleepwalking through his last three years than it does with becoming nebraska. and even then their recruiting classes were consistently ranked in the top ten-ish, so it was more an issue of crappy evaluation metrics than attracting highly-rated talent.

and oooooooohhh, wooooow, ohio state has better recruits than michigan. plz, omg, point me to an era where osu hasn't had the better recruits. michigan is in michigan, ohio state is in ohio, and one of those states has actual prep talent. usc could be in indiana and they wouldn't be able to out recruit osu in ohio. we've always had to make due with seven or eight ohio defections, four meh michigan kids, and whatever we could skim from cali and penn. and things are sooooo ominous right now that dickrod has already resumed michigan's traditional presence in ohio, has pulled the highest-rated in-state prospects, and has won head-to-head battles for florida kids with urban meyer.

last year was a perfect storm, and this next year will be frustrating because carr didn't leave enough talent to make the coaching transition seem a bit more seamless (most notably on the o-line and at qb. carr's recruiting philosophy at this position is probably why his legacy will have to be broken in half to fully appreciate his success) . but most michigan fans are pretty excited about the direction of the program, which is wholly different than the situation in lincoln, if only because our AD is doing a great job running the athletic dept. without the aid of cronies. seriously, bill martin vs. that guy all the nebraksa fans in here complain about?

and really, penn state and msu appear on the rise? wake me when that's not the case. the same narrative has persisted since i was in college and elementary school, respectively.

M Club wrote: but most michigan fans are pretty excited about the direction of the program, which is wholly different than the situation in lincoln, if only because our AD is doing a great job running the athletic dept. without the aid of cronies. seriously, bill martin vs. that guy all the nebraksa fans in here complain about?

Nebraska fan may be iffy on Pederson, but I think they are pretty happy with Pelini.

Michigan is bringing in a pretty good class, maybe not as “highly rated” as they’re used to, but that’ll happen when you usher in a new regime. I have no doubt DickRod will bring the recruits to AA, the question for me is whether his system(s) will get over on Big Ten competition.

King Crimson wrote:

M Club wrote: but most michigan fans are pretty excited about the direction of the program, which is wholly different than the situation in lincoln, if only because our AD is doing a great job running the athletic dept. without the aid of cronies. seriously, bill martin vs. that guy all the nebraksa fans in here complain about?

Nebraska fan may be iffy on Pederson, but I think they are pretty happy with Pelini.

my point here has to do with martin's level-headed approach to his job. he has a vision and he acts accordingly rather than freaking out like the rest of us fans a la WHY DIDN'T YOU HIRE LES MILES!!!! it's why any of this 'bsc in dickrod's third year" talk you hear from some corners is ridiculous. he's not getting fired unless he starts fucking martin's wife on his replay show. that or he just doesn't do a good job, obviously, but martin's shrewd enough to judge progress by more than how often he wins with a dii qb and no offensive line. nebraska's last few years was a crisis of leadership at the very top, an issue michigan just doesn't have right now. i mean, you're finally happy to have the coach you already had five years ago. i'm glad you're happy now, i just don't foresee our situation being similar to the one you endured. that's all.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Michigan is bringing in a pretty good class, maybe not as “highly rated” as they’re used to, but that’ll happen when you usher in a new regime. I have no doubt DickRod will bring the recruits to AA, the question for me is whether his system(s) will get over on Big Ten competition.

there's certainly a question of whether or not his style will translate into big ten play. as far as pulling highly rated talent, this past class had its usual share of four stars, as well as a five-star. carr only pulled one or two of them at the most any given year. next year's class is already shaping up pretty well as far as the four-stars go.

regardless of that, his system doesn't necessarily correlate with guru ratings. offensive line, for example, where the five-star sorts are 6 8 370 walls that wouldn't succeed in dickrod's schemes. that claim obviously has more relevance to the offensive side of the ball.

Well, a young MSU team with a good young coach pushed for the Big 10 title last year. Penn St won the title, and it's their second time in the past few seasons where they jumped up into the national title discussion.

I wouldn't exactly call these things a mirage, or "Yeah, we've heard those warnings before."

They did it. It wasn't just talk.

From the outside looking in, the Michigan situation is beginning to look a lot like Nebraska, for one reason: lowered expectations. They're becoming too comfortable with them, in the same way Nebraska and ND have become too comfortable with them.

They've conceded the war to Ohio St, despite whatever backpedaling they'll do when presented with that claim. They've conceded the fact that they're no longer a national power who can be expected to fight for the national title.

Lowered expectations.

"Being realistic" is the counter argument. Great. It's the usual loser's lament.

The other thing they have there is a coach who's more into making players fit into his system, rather than making his system fit his players. DickRod without Pat White is a very average coach. So, unless he snags himself another Pat White or Tim Tebow, what then? Those guys don't grow on trees, and there's no reason to assume they'll go to Michigan even when they do pop up again. There are simply too many other more attractive programs for them...

In the meantime, it'll continue to be, "Yeah, well, he doesn't have the right guys in there yet. Wait until he gets his kinds of players in there."

Meanwhile, 7 out of 8 will have become 10 out of 11, and every page 88 posts on will take forever to load as his avatar rolls through its sad song.

Van wrote:Well, a young MSU team with a good young coach pushed for the Big 10 title last year. Penn St won the title, and it's their second time in the past few seasons where they jumped up into the national title discussion.

I wouldn't exactly call these things a mirage, or "Yeah, we've heard those warnings before."

They did it. It wasn't just talk.

msu didn't push for the title last year. they happened not to lose to the shitty teams in their shitty conference, and at the end of the year they found themselves in a position to share the league title if they won their last game. unfortunately for them, penn st. was a good team, which meant msu had no chance at winning. msu vs. shite teams last year: 9-0. msu against teams with a full compliment of arms and legs: 0-4.

but i'll take your word for it over mine since i never grew up in michigan. msu has also never had a good season that wasn't immediately followed by the press all gaga about them finally turning the corner and becoming a legitimate big ten power. i'll buy into the optimism that surrounds dantonio, but until he actually gets them to compete against good teams it's still the same old story.

and penn st. great, they show their heads every three falls. you want to compare a team to nebraska: there you go.

From the outside looking in, the Michigan situation is beginning to look a lot like Nebraska, for one reason: lowered expectations. They're becoming too comfortable with them, in the same way Nebraska and ND have become too comfortable with them.

They've conceded the war to Ohio St, despite whatever backpedaling they'll do when presented with that claim. They've conceded the fact that they're no longer a national power who can be expected to fight for the national title.

Lowered expectations.

"Being realistic" is the counter argument. Great. It's the usual loser's lament.

does your wp program have some sort of "wannabe clueless syndicated national columnist" template on it? nice paragraph breaks.

michigan doesn't have lowered expectations. they had realistic expectations for last year and have them again this year. beyond that, the players dickrod recruited will be juniors and hopefully we'll go 6-5 or something.

The other thing they have there is a coach who's more into making players fit into his system, rather than making his system fit his players. DickRod without Pat White is a very average coach. So, unless he snags himself another Pat White or Tim Tebow, what then? Those guys don't grow on trees, and there's no reason to assume they'll go to Michigan even when they do pop up again. There are simply too many other more attractive programs for them...

ja, he's a pretty average coach who has no track record of turning around teams or inventing an offensive system no one else uses because it's too gimmicky, unless you're florida and win five national championships every year. here's another spot where your turn as faux-columnist hits a snag: ooooh, the system! what sort of dipshit claim is "he's more into making his players fit his system"? i'm pretty sure michigan wanted to hire a coach for his expertise in the spread just so he could run the I. there's a bit of luxury in the recruiting process in that you can target kids who fit your system. omfg what an insight, non? there's also the small issue of every hs on earth basically running the spread, so many of the kids both recruited and not recruited by michigan would fit dickrod's system. and wow, he ran the spread last year with carr's players. bfd. i'll take everything that was learned last year over two or three extra wins. the biggest thing coming out of our spring is the development of the redshirt freshman on the oline, but i really wish they spent last year running a pro-style offense so we could fuck around with it some more this year.

and pat white. michigan will never get another three-star athlete to come play the position he wants rather than go to some other school that wants him to play wr or db. all this "pat white is the only reason dickrod had any success" meme fails to consider dickrod's the only one who envisioned him as a qb.

So, what you're saying is you'd prefer I don't use proper paragraph spacing?

M Club wrote:msu vs. shite teams last year: 9-0.

And in years past, that’d have been what, 5-4, 6-3? Taking care of business against all those “shite” teams is exactly how the team improved, and why it’s reasonable to say the program is rising. Producing the occasional big upset wasn’t a problem in the past; it was the inability to take care of business and separate themselves from the generic Big Ten teams. Last year they did that for the first time in a long, LONG time.

Van wrote:This was what you said you least wanted to see happen, Detroit taking Stafford at #1.

What say you, now?

Crazy stat, about your Lions: They haven't had a Pro Bowl QB since...Greg Landry!!! 1971!!

Dunno, I'm just not that impressed by Stafford. Big arm, but not much else. Big arms just aren't all that important...

One playoff win in 50 years or so is the stat that makes my stomach turn more.

He'll be somewhere between Joey Harrington and Jay Cutler. He's got the big arm and probably can develop into a good passer in the NFL. The problem is that he's behind a sub-standard offensive line. I think Pettigrew could be a nice player for his disposal. The Lions haven't had a quality tight end in quite a while or if ever since I've been watching them. Megatron is a superstar but teams are going to scheme to just take him away and make them beat them on the ground.

The fact they didn't really address their biggest needs on defense makes this draft a failure. They go in typical Lions fashion and look for shiny object to distract us with while the team flounders. Odds are, next year they'll be picking high in the draft again and I'd assume, with the skill positions covered...they'll go heavy on defense. Spikes, Mays, Selvie, and Cody are all attractive prospects at first glance on that side of the ball.

Shoalzie wrote:Megatron

i find the situation at state promising, but like i said, i think we've been through this enough with state that your chickens should be allowed to hatch before van starts using them as an example of why michigan's going to be irrelevant.

Michigan just went 3-9. They're going to stink this year, too. They're 1-7 against their rivals. They haven't won a big game in recent memory. They keep losing at home, to nobodies. They get blown out at home. Michigan St is beating them. Even ND is beating them.

Michigan is already irrelevant. That's not an issue. The point I'm making is that all the signs point to their remaining irrelevant. All the signs point to Ohio St widening the gap, which would guarantee Michigan's irrelevancy. The rise of MSU only hammers it home.

How long will it be until Michigan is again 11-1, or 12-0, with a win over OSU, followed by a BCS bowl win?

Right now, no such scenario is in sight. It's not even plausible, in the near future. So, yeah, Michigan is currently irrelevant.

your last post betrayed you. first, you're a bandwagoner. any usc fan who calls michigan irrelevant after one losing season in 40 years and a rough patch against their primary rival is either [1] a frontrunner or [2] was born just after pete carroll became coach. paul hackett, anyone? basically, you're .m2 in complete sentences. and second, you don't know enough about michigan fb to actually comment. they're losing to state? they just lost to them for the first time in eight years and for the first time in aa since 1990 [both state wins to start those streaks were pretty controversial as well]. and even nd is beating them? they, like state, beat our worst team ever after our previous editions blew them out a couple times in a row.

the only reason michigan has to rebuild is because they had a tired coach who stayed on three years longer than he wanted and who recruited five-star qbs with the understanding he wouldn't recruit another qb in the following class, which left us with john navarre and nick sheridan. other than that, michigan is so irrelevant that they just posted their first losing season in my lifetime, missed their first bowl game in my lifetime, are a year away from reopening michigan stadium as a legitimately loud place, just pulled a top ten recruiting class because they're so irrelevant no one wants to play there - including their top qb target for this upcoming class - and somehow still managed to sell more merchandise than any other school not called texas.

or we could use your metrics, things like reduced expectations and whatever other hack ideas you think will lead to syndication.

M Club wrote:your last post betrayed you.

Oooooo! Should we call in Jack Bauer?

first, you're a bandwagoner. any usc fan who calls michigan irrelevant after one losing season

Try again, slappy.

I seem to remember clearly delineating these things:

1-7, against their main rival. Did that happen over just one season? Nope.

No big wins in recent memory. One season? Nope.

Losing way too many games, including too many home games, to nobodies. One season? Nope.

Getting killed in recruiting. One season? Nope. And don't give me that crap about the state of Michigan, vs the state of Ohio. Oklahoma isn't exactly California, Florida or Texas and they still recruit just fine. They recruit just as well as their goliath to the south. LSU and Bama also aren't exactly The Big Three states for recruiting, and they kill it.

Michigan has resources. They're just getting their asses kicked, and it's hardly just one season. Ohio St is killing them.

Keep in mind, I only said Michigan is CURRENTLY irrelevant. I didn't say they always have been, or they always will be. They are now, though, and they'll continue to be, in the near future.

That's not a bandwagon statement, that's simply calling a spade a spade. Oh, and yes, USC was also irrelevant there, for a good long while. Absolutely.

The question is whether DickRod will be able to pull them out of this irrelevancy? So far, the evidence looks dubious. Michigan has undergone other coaching regime changes before, and like ND with Charlie Weis, they never fell off the face of the earth like they did with DickRod.

He doesn't look anything like an Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops or Pete Carroll, in terms of instantly beginning to turn around this program. Will he return Michigan to greatness? Do you really think this guy will take this program and quickly return them to the Big Boys Table?

the only reason michigan has to rebuild is because they had a tired coach who stayed on three years longer than he wanted and who recruited five-star qbs with the understanding he wouldn't recruit another qb in the following class, which left us with john navarre and nick sheridan.

If you think your QB situation is the only reason Michigan has fallen, well, I don't need to ever hear another word from you about your supposed expertise regarding Michigan football.

Michigan has suffered a program wide collapse. Both sides of the ball. Both lines. It's hardly just their QBs.

other than that, michigan is so irrelevant that they just posted their first losing season in my lifetime,

When was the last time they were a legitimately consistent national power?

missed their first bowl game in my lifetime,

When was the last time they won a big bowl game, a BCS bowl game? When was the last time they won a big game, period?

are a year away from reopening michigan stadium as a legitimately loud place, just pulled a top ten recruiting class because they're so irrelevant no one wants to play there - including their top qb target for this upcoming class - and somehow still managed to sell more merchandise than any other school not called texas.

Great. Sell t-shirts. That'll be sure to warm the cockles, after yet another beat down by Ohio St.

Lowered expectations.

Good thread.

Personally, I don't feel the UM program is currently irrelevant nor is it peaking 'round the corner at greatness. It's really just sitting on one giant question mark right now. I'll wait to see what DickRod can do with a program full of his players before I start forecasting the future of the program. Nobody really thought they could run the spread with those guys last year, right? That season foreshadowed literally nothing. This is a wait and see game right now. Maybe that doesn't bode well for message board discussion, but since we're calling spades and all, that's the true spade here.

For Michigan, the only thing that matters is getting over on Ohio St, winning the Big 10 and at least competing for national titles.

We don't need to wait and see, on that score. They haven't been close, for a long time. They're not going to be there, not for at least a few more years, if at all, under Dick Rod.

Right now, Michigan is just an after thought, a relic. The only real intrigue there is the question of who will get off the mat first, among the currently dormant perennial powers: Michigan, ND or Nebraska?

My guess is Nebaska will be last, because they have too large of a mountain to climb, in trying to overcome OU and Texas.

Michigan has to overcome themselves, and then Ohio St.

Once ND gets Gruden, or at least someone much better than Weis, they could jump right back in. They're not in a conference, so they don't have to overcome an Ohio St or Oklahoma.

My guess is we'll see ND back in a BCS bowl, first. Michigan, second, then Nebraska.

Van, Michigan has some work to do, no doubt, but they haven't fallen as hard as Nebraska or Notre Dame. They haven't had enough sustained mediocrity/outright failure for that. 3-9 was BAD, 1-7 vs OSU is BAD, yet they've been consistently good enough and relevant enough over the years, including staying in the top 25, getting to decent bowls, etc., to shine quite a bit brighter than ND and Nebraska. Before Carr really checked out as coach, Michigan was considered a model of consistency -- 2, 3 loss seasons pretty much every year. Perhaps not elite, but certainly a tier or two higher than ND and Nebraska.

Hell, it was only a mere three seasons ago that Michigan was a touchdown away from playing in the MNC game. Seems like a lifetime since ND or Nebraska accomplished anything close to that.

They lost by a field goal to their bitter rival, and obviously didn't take care of business, but 11-0 heading into late November with one game left on your schedule is considered "competing for a national championship" by any reasonable standard; especially when you consider there really IS no post season, so the regular season is where all the competition to get to the big one is had.

They're not going to be there, not for at least a few more years, if at all, under Dick Rod.

Probably not for the next two years, no. Beyond that none of us have any clue.

Van wrote:....
My guess is we'll see ND back in a BCS bowl, first. Michigan, second, then Nebraska.

sin,

ESPVAN


Jesus H Christ. When did Van get a gig over there? Dude either has good aptitude or the orientation and training includes ESP'indoctrination. We heard similar shit back when Nebraska was handing Florida, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Miami, and Notre Dame their asses on a regular basis.

Pellini did just find with the unmotivated, heartless Callahan recruits who would lay down in the second qtr. against better teams. Pellini has these same kids playing with and even beating better teams now. (Taco Tech, Clemson, V tech).

Imagine what "his" kids are going to be doing 3 years from now? Contending for the Big 12 title and maybe back in the BCS. I'm calling my shot now: Nebraska will be in the top 25 next year...new QB and all. Pellini is that good a coach and motivator. Having Osborne upstairs isn't a bad thing either.

Michigan, Nebraska, Tennesse are going to be just fine. Whereas USC is going to be a trainwreck within 5 years and I think it begins after the NCAA begins the investigations and Carroll jumps overboard right beforehand.

It's simply my guess. Big deal. I just see Nebraska and Michigan having bigger obstacles to overcome, since they're in conferences which include the likes of OU, Texas and OSO.

ND has no such road blocks. ND simply has to become respectable again. With a glamour boy coach like Gruden, and with their schedule, and the media's love for them, everyone will be slobbering to put them in a BCS game. They can afford to lose their big rivalry game. It won't stop them from getting a BCS game.

They just have an easier road back, that's all.

mgo, I'd put a lot more stock in Michigan's "run to the national title" season had both Michigan and OSU not gotten blasted in their bowl games.

It goes back to that whole, "When was the last big game Michigan won?" point. They played two big games that season, and they lost both of them. They haven't won a big game since, and I can't recall how far back we have to go to find their previous big game win. They haven't beaten OSU since, what, '03? When was their last BCS bowl game victory?

It's just the yardstick I use. I don't really care about nine win seasons, which are strictly the result of scheduling and circumstance. It comes down to how are you doing in your barometer games, and Michigan's been in the tank now for awhile in those games.

When they begin winning those games again, that's when they're back.

H4ever, any ol' day now the NCAA is going to force Pete to jump ship. I know, I know, we've been hearing that for how many years now?

I'll believe it when it happens. If it happens, yep, USC will likely go into the tank. If it doesn't happen, forget about it. This run will continue, mostly unabated, for the foreseeable future.

Van wrote:

M Club wrote:your last post betrayed you.

Oooooo! Should we call in Jack Bauer?

did you giggle when you wrote that?

I seem to remember clearly delineating these things:

1-7, against their main rival. Did that happen over just one season? Nope.

No big wins in recent memory. One season? Nope.

Losing way too many games, including too many home games, to nobodies. One season? Nope.

Getting killed in recruiting. One season? Nope. And don't give me that crap about the state of Michigan, vs the state of Ohio. Oklahoma isn't exactly California, Florida or Texas and they still recruit just fine. They recruit just as well as their goliath to the south. LSU and Bama also aren't exactly The Big Three states for recruiting, and they kill it.

Michigan has resources. They're just getting their asses kicked, and it's hardly just one season. Ohio St is killing them.

what crap about recruiting? you brought it up as evidence michigan's circling the drain and i pointed out ohio state has pulled better recruits since time immemorial, so you're not really helping your "argument" there. we can either pretend you know what you're talking about or we could ask the umich and osu posters if that's the case.

i don't recall saying michigan has avoided embarrassing defeats, either. i actually laid out some reasons that led to them. the problem is you use words you don't understand, like irrelevancy. the last five or six years have been the worst stretch in umich history, and they've still managed to go to three bcs games because they're so irrelevant, not to mention beat tim tebow last year. irrelevancy in cf is going 3-9 and following it up with 4-8 and finding less and less kids want to go to your school. that's not the case at michigan. we simply took awhile to wind down an era and dealt with the shock last year. one season. until this repeats itself michigan is hardly irrelevant. the problem with your argument is you lay out criteria that one team in all of cf meets, which i guess is your roundabout way of playing .m2.

The question is whether DickRod will be able to pull them out of this irrelevancy? So far, the evidence looks dubious. Michigan has undergone other coaching regime changes before, and like ND with Charlie Weis, they never fell off the face of the earth like they did with DickRod.

He doesn't look anything like an Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops or Pete Carroll, in terms of instantly beginning to turn around this program. Will he return Michigan to greatness? Do you really think this guy will take this program and quickly return them to the Big Boys Table?

seriously, why don't you explain the dubious evidence. uh, he went 3-9 with barely any talent on his roster. ok. when all is said and done between meyer, stoops, carroll, and dickrod we'll have to examine the evidence. some presumptuous socal will no doubt say, but it took dickrod three seasons to return to relevancy as defined by me while stoops and tressell won mnc's their second year. then we'll examine the rosters of those schools and most of us will understand that dickrod's undertaken a completely different rebuilding project than those guys did.

also, why don't you tell us about michigan's other regime changes you're using as a yardstick for the current one. i'm curious.

the only reason michigan has to rebuild is because they had a tired coach who stayed on three years longer than he wanted and who recruited five-star qbs with the understanding he wouldn't recruit another qb in the following class, which left us with john navarre and nick sheridan.

If you think your QB situation is the only reason Michigan has fallen, well, I don't need to ever hear another word from you about your supposed expertise regarding Michigan football.

Michigan has suffered a program wide collapse. Both sides of the ball. Both lines. It's hardly just their QBs.

jfc, you're obtuse. i said they had a tired coach who had a shitty recruiting philosophy near the end of his tenure. i'll start using bullet points since you can't read between the lines.

other than that, michigan is so irrelevant that they just posted their first losing season in my lifetime,

When was the last time they were a legitimately consistent national power?

missed their first bowl game in my lifetime,

When was the last time they won a big bowl game, a BCS bowl game? When was the last time they won a big game, period?

so basically what you're saying is that relevance is whether you're going to put your star rb's family in a nice house and win that particular year? ok, michigan isn't going to be relevant this year on a national level. anyhow, i'd say up till 06 they were a legitimate national power, thought it doesn't count since van's school of logic dictates whatever you say makes sense and everything else, bah.

are a year away from reopening michigan stadium as a legitimately loud place, just pulled a top ten recruiting class because they're so irrelevant no one wants to play there - including their top qb target for this upcoming class - and somehow still managed to sell more merchandise than any other school not called texas.

Great. Sell t-shirts. That'll be sure to warm the cockles, after yet another beat down by Ohio St.

this should be the easiest point for you to pick up on, bandwagoner. once a team slides into irrelevancy no one will buy their clothes. the only reason you dismiss it is because you have no way to counter other than saying, no it's not.

Didn't this thread used to be about the draft?

Van wrote:The only real intrigue there is the question of who will get off the mat first, among the currently dormant perennial powers: Michigan, ND or Nebraska?

My guess is Nebaska will be last, because they have too large of a mountain to climb, in trying to overcome OU and Texas.

Michigan has to overcome themselves, and then Ohio St.

Once ND gets Gruden, or at least someone much better than Weis, they could jump right back in. They're not in a conference, so they don't have to overcome an Ohio St or Oklahoma.

My guess is we'll see ND back in a BCS bowl, first. Michigan, second, then Nebraska.

Interesting topic, although imho, the mods should split it off from the original thread.

I'm not nearly as pessimistic about Nebraska as Van is. I'm not underestimating the potential roadblock posed by both Oklahoma and Texas. But Nebraska has one distinct advantage in that regard: they don't play either of those schools every year.

Not to mention that their particular division is down at the moment. Nebraska's most significant North rival, at least from an historical standpoint -- Colorado -- is also down, and likely has more obstacles in the way of its comeback than does Nebraska. In the past two years, the North has been dominated by the likes of Missouri and Kansas, for Chrissakes. And as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, Missouri may have just blown its wad on a uniquely talented senior class. I see no reason why Nebraska can't return to dominating the North, almost immediately, although I'd make allowance for an exception in years where they happened to draw both Oklahoma and Texas on the schedule.

Win the Big XII North, and it becomes a one-game season for Nebraska in terms of getting to the BCS. Anything can happen in a single game.

As for ND, for my money ND probably has the closest thing to a bright line test for a BCS bid of any school in BTPCF. If they go 10-2 or better, they probably will get a BCS bid. If they go 9-3 or worse, they probably will not get a BCS bid.

I say that based on the current BCS rules. The rule limiting each conference to no more than one at-large BCS bid in a given season gives ND a huge advantage as long as ND is in the Top 14 in the final BCS regular-season poll. In the latter regard, ND is extremely likely to finish in the Top 14 with a 10-2 record, and unlikely to finish in the Top 14 with a 9-3 record. I qualified my previous statement with the word "probably" because, of course, there are certain variables which have to be factored in in every season.

That situation is not without disadvantages as far as ND is concerned, however. For example, consider the following two possible scenarios based on next year's schedule.

Scenario 1: ND finishes 10-2. They lose to USC in a blowout. They lose to either Fredo or Sparty in a blowout, getting a scabdick win against the other. They also get scabdick wins against Michigan and Pitt.

Scenario 2: ND finishes 9-3. They lose to USC, Fredo and Sparty, all in close fashion, and beat both Michigan and Pitt convincingly.

In all likelihood, Scenario 1 means a BCS bid for ND, while Scenario 2 means no BCS bid. Yet, notwithstanding the difference in won-loss records, a legitimate argument could be made that Scenario 2 actually means a better season for ND than does Scenario 1. And that argument has even more merit when applied to a team like ND which, realistically speaking, is at least a season away from peaking.

Of the three you mentioned, Michigan is the most enigmatic to me. M Club makes some valid comments concerning the state of that program. Carr underachieved on the recruiting trail during his last few years, and it will take Dick Rod a few years to get the players he needs to run his system. So at least in the short term, things don't look all that promising for Michigan, at least not in terms of a return to the BCS.

That said, I'm not all that pessimistic about the long term for Michigan. I don't mean to imply that either Penn State or Michigan State has no shot at a Big Ten title, but both teams, particularly Sparty, have to be seen as outliers in that regard. At the end of the day, at least from a long-term perspective, the Big Ten is still the Big Two -- tOSU and Michigan. Of course, Michigan still will need to figure out a way to be more successful than they have been against tOSU.

I don't see any of these schools realistically contending for a national title next season. As far as a BCS bid goes, in order of likelihood next year, I'd rank ND first, Nebraska second, Michigan third.

You also could have included Florida State and Miami in this discussion. They don't have the long-term success comparable to the schools you mentioned, but in terms of how long most on this board have been following BTPCF, they both have success which is long-term enough to merit discussion here. For that matter, until last year you could have included Alabama in this grouping as well.

And, since I missed commenting on it before . . .

Van wrote:They're not doing shit at the very highest levels of BTPCF, but the ACC is really killing it in the NFL, most every year.

I can see it now: ACC fan arguing that they're the Meatgrinder.

M Club, at least try to make up your own mind...

M Club wrote:the only reason michigan has to rebuild is because they had a tired coach who stayed on three years longer than he wanted and who recruited five-star qbs with the understanding he wouldn't recruit another qb in the following class, which left us with john navarre and nick sheridan.

Your words, not mine. You laid it all on Lloyd Carr's QB recruiting.

I said no, Michigan has suffered a program wide collapse, on both sides of the ball, on both lines.

You then backpedal and say DickRod failed, because Carr left the cupboard bare, which only substantiates what I just said about Michigan's lackluster recruiting, their program wide collapse and the fact that this isn't just a single season issue.

Talk out of both sides of your mouth much? It's okay to agree with me, as long as you think you're the one labeling the reason?

Also, Lloyd Carr wasn't about to go 3-9 with the talent he left DickRod.

Shoalzie wrote:Didn't this thread used to be about the draft?

So, this is your first day on these boards?

Terry, that's precisely why I didn't include FSU and Miami: because they're not the long standing perennial powers that ND, Michigan and Nebraska are. For all we know, history will show that they were both two decade wonders, and then pfffft.

You also touched on one of the reasons I guess ND will get back to the BCS first. I said they had the easiest path back, because they're not in a conference. Nebraska isn't getting back, not unless they win the Big XII. That's not happening any time soon. Michigan could at least get back without winning the Big 10, which is exactly what they've twice done in recent years, so I give them the nod over Nebraska. Still, if Michigan goes to a Rose Bowl after losing the Ohio St game, and thus the conference, I don't consider them to be "back." They're just the beneficiary of Jim Delany's damnable existence on this planet.

Michigan needs to beat OSU and win the conference before I consider them to be back.

Then again, hell, the Big XII is so stupid that a four loss Nebraska team could simply luck into facing a sleepwalking OU or Texas in the CCG and suddenly they'd be the Big XII "champs."

I still wouldn't consider them to be back though, not until they legitimately win the conference.

ND? ND is the only of the three that could go, with two losses...or possibly even three losses! Check that: Nebraska could too, by winning the bogus Big XII CCG.

I like ND's chances of eeking through their easier schedule with just two to three losses and getting in, especially once they get a shiny new media darling coach in there. ND just has a red carpet invitation to the BCS, which Michigan and Nebraska lack. Nebraska has to win a tough conference, and Michigan can afford no more than one loss.

As for this...

But Nebraska has one distinct advantage in that regard: they don't play either of those schools every year.

They do, if they want to go to the BCS. They might be lucky enough to dodge both teams for awhile, but if they want to go to the BCS they're going to have to win the CCG and that means beating either OU or Texas. One way or the other, Nebraska isn't going to be able to completely dodge both teams, not if they're to return to the BCS.

At least among BCS conferences, that's what makes the Big 10 "special." In any given season it's possible for a team to win the conference while completely avoiding the league's heavyweights. Iowa could go 8-0 in conference while having avoided better teams like Ohio St and Penn St.

Van wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:Didn't this thread used to be about the draft?

So, this is your first day on these boards?

I know, all threads degenerate into one of several recurring arguments...just like every NFL thread turns into something about the AFC West.

Van wrote:You also touched on one of the reasons I guess ND will get back to the BCS first. I said they had the easiest path back, because they're not in a conference.

ND has two rules advantages within the BCS. Ironically, most ND haters focus on the less egregious of the two: the Top 8 rule. If you support the concept of BCS as meritocracy, which most in here claim to do, then you shouldn't have a problem with this rule, since ND would be in the BCS with a Top 8 finish if the BCS were a true meritocracy. And do I really need to list all the teams that have won conference championships, and by extension, automatic BCS bids, while finishing below #8?

The rule that should really infuriate the ND haters is a result of the law of unintended consequences. The BCS added two at-large bids beginning in '06. At the same time, they retained the rule limiting each conference to no more than one at-large BCS bid. That rule essentially had no consequence, pro or con, for ND when the BCS had only two at-large bids. With four at-large bids, though, it becomes a huge advantage for ND if ND is a Top 14 team. The '06 season provides a good illustration. Once the BCS awarded at-large bids to Michigan (mandatory) and LSU, that eliminated Wisconsin, Auburn and Arkansas from further consideration. The BCS had a choice between ND and West Virginia for the final at-large bid.

That having been said, if taking the path of least resistance for a BCS bid was the sole concern, it would be in ND's best interests to join the Big East, rather than continue to go it alone. ND would lose the automatic selection if Top 8, but would replace that with an automatic selection if they won the Big East. I would submit that in most seasons, it would be easier to win the Big East than finish in the Top 8 (Big East champ has finished in the Top 8 only once since 2002 -- Louisville in '06). The Big East also benefits from the rule limiting at-large BCS bids to no more than one per conference (albeit for slightly different reasons than ND), and that benefit would only increase if ND gave up its independent status. Granted, the dichotomy is no longer as great as it was when there were only two at-large bids, but it's still there.

Nebraska isn't getting back, not unless they win the Big XII. That's not happening any time soon.

Hold that thought for just a moment.

Michigan could at least get back without winning the Big 10, which is exactly what they've twice done in recent years, so I give them the nod over Nebraska. Still, if Michigan goes to a Rose Bowl after losing the Ohio St game, and thus the conference, I don't consider them to be "back." They're just the beneficiary of Jim Delany's damnable existence on this planet.

To an extent, yes. The Rose Bowl always will favor a Big Ten or Pac-10 team to replace that conference champion in the BCS title game. At the same time, however, Delany can't claim full responsibility for the presence of at-large bids in the BCS. I'm not much of a fan of this system, but if we're going to have it, there should be at-large bids.

Then again, hell, the Big XII is so stupid that a four loss Nebraska team could simply luck into facing a sleepwalking OU or Texas in the CCG and suddenly they'd be the Big XII "champs."

Bingo! You just hit on my line of thinking about Nebraska.

ND? ND is the only of the three that could go, with two losses...or possibly even three losses!

C'mon. Either Michigan or Nebraska has a decent shot at an at-large bid with two losses. As good a shot as ND with two losses? Maybe not, but . . .

Check that: Nebraska could too, by winning the bogus Big XII CCG.

Yep. The CCG, as I previously stated, is essentially a one-game season. Or a huge equalizer, if you prefer.

I like ND's chances of eeking through their easier schedule with just two to three losses and getting in, especially once they get a shiny new media darling coach in there.

Three losses is by no means a lock for a BCS bid for ND. With three losses, they'll need some help, either enough to get them into the Top 14, or the Top 14 to be dominated by 1-2 BCS conferences, so the BCS has to go below the Top 14 to select all of its at-large bids.

ND just has a red carpet invitation to the BCS, which Michigan and Nebraska lack.

I touched on that before. The most significant advantage ND has is the rule limiting each conference to no more than one at-large BCS bid. That hardly amounts to a "red carpet invitation."

Nebraska has to win a tough conference, . . .

They have the advantage of playing in the weaker (by far) division, and of not necessarily having to go through either Oklahoma or Texas until the CCG. Right now, there's no reason that Nebraska can't return to dominance in the North, at least in most years. In that case, they're only one game away from a BCS bid.

. . . and Michigan can afford no more than one loss.

Disagree. They don't get the automatic selection with more than one loss, but as long as they're Top 8 and ranked no lower than second in the Big Ten, they're in pretty good shape for an at-large BCS bid.

Not to mention the Rose Bowl advantage that follows the Big Ten. Remember Illinois in '07? A Rose Bowl, i.e., BCS, bid with three losses. ND hasn't been able to pull that one off, at least not yet.

As for this...

But Nebraska has one distinct advantage in that regard: they don't play either of those schools every year.

They do, if they want to go to the BCS. They might be lucky enough to dodge both teams for awhile, but if they want to go to the BCS they're going to have to win the CCG and that means beating either OU or Texas. One way or the other, Nebraska isn't going to be able to completely dodge both teams, not if they're to return to the BCS.

True, but they can get to the CCG without going through either Oklahoma or Texas. That's what I was getting at, as well as the contrast for Oklahoma and Texas, each of whom has to battle the other every year for the CCG.

Terry, keep in mind, I said I don't consider Michigan or Nebraska to be back just because they manage to scabdick their way into a BCS game. If a three loss Nebraska team gets in by scabdicking their way through the horrible North, and then they beat a sleepwalking OU or Texas, no, I don't consider them to be back.

That's not the Nebraska team I have in mind, when I'm talking about a perennial national power returning from dormancy.

They have to win like Nebraska. They have to have no more than one loss, and they have to beat OU or Texas, on equal footing. Meaning, it's all on the line, for both teams.

That isn't the case, if undefeated Texas rolls into the CCG against a three or four loss North winner. That Texas team is going to a BCS bowl game, regardless of what happens in the CCG.

Conversely, merely getting Delany'd into the Rose Bowl doesn't prove Michigan is back, either. Michigan is back when they win eleven games and they legitimately win the Big 10, including a victory over Ohio St.

ND doesn't merely have the advantage of their BCS contract agreement. Oh hell no. They also have the advantage of every tv executive and every BCS bowl executive and everyone in the media bending over backwards to put them into a BCS bowl game, given even the slightest reason to do so. ND is never going to be the odd man out, in any BCS bowl game debate. If their resume affords them even a reasonable argument, they're going to get in.

They're like the SEC, in that regard.

Nebraska doesn't have that. Nebraska has to win their way in, with either a conference championship or a monster season. Michigan doesn't have what ND has, but they do have The Delany Factor. All Michigan has to do is burp up a respectable ten win season (or even a nine win season, as we saw with Illinois) and a second place finish in the Big 10 and if there's even a sliver of a chance of pushing it through Jim Delany will make sure Michigan is in Pasadena.

ND, though, they just have the ultimate red carpet. Just win ten games, period. They're in. Doesn't matter who they beat. They don't have to win a conference. They don't have to win their rivalry games. They don't have to do anything special. Just win ten games. Possibly only nine.

Nobody else can touch that. ND has the sweetest BCS deal in the country.

M Club wrote:the only reason michigan has to rebuild is because they had a tired coach who stayed on three years longer than he wanted and who recruited five-star qbs with the understanding he wouldn't recruit another qb in the following class, which left us with john navarre and nick sheridan.

Your words, not mine. You laid it all on Lloyd Carr's QB recruiting.

like i said, you can't read between the lines. i'll bullet lists for you if you need, but really, i laid it at the feet of carr staying for too long.

You then backpedal and say DickRod failed, because Carr left the cupboard bare, which only substantiates what I just said about Michigan's lackluster recruiting, their program wide collapse and the fact that this isn't just a single season issue.

this is where you fail. you can't read and begin to argue against what you'd like to think i'm saying. i never backpedaled, nor did i say dickrod failed. i said you're presumptuous, something mgo called you out for. dickrod hasn't failed, and i asked you to explain those dubious signs that say all signs likely, but since you can't you try to obfuscate, which seems to be your general schtict whenever you get called out for one of your dipshit claims in that column you keep trying to syndicate.

bottom line is you used the draft to comment on teams you're wholly unfamiliar with. i said michigan's not in deep trouble. you said yes they are because of this. i said "this" isn't applicable to your ominous proclamations of deep trouble. your counter was to reach for claim about irrelevancy and lowered expectations and now want to keep the conversation stuck in the mud over what constitutes irrelevancy rather than 'fess up to being stupid at thread's start.

Also, Lloyd Carr wasn't about to go 3-9 with the talent he left DickRod.

ooh, brrrn! 5-7 would've been so much better.

You're fucking retarded.

On the one hand you blame 3-9 on LC's recruiting, saying LC left the cupboard bare. In the next breath you deny that Michigan has been lagging in recruiting, which is only one of the areas I pointed to as an explanation for the current state of Michigan football.

You can't have it both ways. The cupboard was bare, and that's a program wide failure. It wasn't just the QB position, and in fact the QB situation was highly exaggerated. Their struggles ran (and continue to run) much deeper than the QB position.

Oh, and yes, DickRod most certainly failed. 3-9 cannot happen, ever. Not at Michigan. His failure isn't terminal, and it isn't indicative that he will continue to fail, but he's most certainly failed at Michigan, so far.

Van wrote:From the outside looking in, the Michigan situation is beginning to look a lot like Nebraska, for one reason: lowered expectations. They're becoming too comfortable with them, in the same way Nebraska and ND have become too comfortable with them.

They've conceded the war to Ohio St, despite whatever backpedaling they'll do when presented with that claim. They've conceded the fact that they're no longer a national power who can be expected to fight for the national title.

Lowered expectations.

"Being realistic" is the counter argument. Great. It's the usual loser's lament.

M Club wrote:michigan doesn't have lowered expectations. they had realistic expectations for last year and have them again this year. beyond that, the players dickrod recruited will be juniors and hopefully we'll go 6-5 or something.

Like I said, you DO have lowered expectations, you've become OKAY with having lowered expectations ("hopefully" we'll go 6-5...two years from now!!), and right on cue, just as I said you'd say, you rationalized your lowered expectations with the usual loser's lament: You have "realistic" expectations.

Thanks for playing.

Carr would have won 8 or 9 games last year because Mallet would've been the qb and other defectors would have stayed.

RichRod will be fine, the leap from year one to year two of his system has a positive history. Mclub hit it on the head when he said that UM's re-emergence onto the national scene will most likely coincide with the completion of the Stadium overhaul in 2010. That is not to say that this season is lost. I would be dissapointed with anything other than getting back to post season play. I'll be happy when they are wood-shedding the patsies, beating the mid level Big Ten squads regulary, and splitting with OSU. But the program was stripped all the way down to the bare walls, I don't think one bad year in 40 or so is a bad thing. How many losing seasons has sc had in that time?

Van wrote:You're fucking retarded.

On the one hand you blame 3-9 on LC's recruiting, saying LC left the cupboard bare. In the next breath you deny that Michigan has been lagging in recruiting, which is only one of the areas I pointed to as an explanation for the current state of Michigan football.

You can't have it both ways. The cupboard was bare, and that's a program wide failure. It wasn't just the QB position, and in fact the QB situation was highly exaggerated. Their struggles ran (and continue to run) much deeper than the QB position.

Oh, and yes, DickRod most certainly failed. 3-9 cannot happen, ever. Not at Michigan. His failure isn't terminal, and it isn't indicative that he will continue to fail, but he's most certainly failed at Michigan, so far.

retarded? no, i can read words and discern thoughts at the same time. this is what you said:

Michigan is in deep trouble because they aren't producing big talent, they aren't producing top recruiting classes and they aren't winning games.

which prompted me to point out dickrod used his first month on the job to pull together a class just outside the top ten and pulled a top ten class this past season. i don't see how that substantiates your claim they aren't recruiting top talent. you see, your first claim - they aren't producing big talent - is an indictment against the carr regime; the second is false indictment against dickrod; and the third would be a combo of the two. so it's perfectly logical to claim carr's later recruiting didn't do dickrod any favors. carr was still pulling highly-rated classes, but either his evaluation metrics eroded or his staff wasn't developing the talent they got on campus, which is also a reasonable assumption considering my claim about a tired coach: he'd moved past the cutthroat aspect of cf. he had little incentive to part with the likes of stan debord and andy moehler [your explanation for a pitiful oline].

and again, your presumptuousness is out in front of you. 3-9 is failure only in the sense it should've been 4-8 [toledo]. as soon as dickrod took the job he lost two projected starters on the oline to life-after-football and a third to wah-the-new-coach-won't-let-me-mow-lawns-with-my-daddy-while-everyone-else-practices. then he lost his only legitimately talented qb. as soon as the season started he lost another lineman and one of his best receivers, who nick sheridan couldn't get the ball to in the first place. i don't see how you can argue otherwise that he was dealt a pretty shite hand, and i, for one, don't mind that he treated the season as one long practice. admittedly, he made a poor choice for defensive coordinator, but it took him all of 2.4 seconds to own up to it, as opposed to carr's tendency to wait for his shite coordinators to grow old and die.

really, you sound just like those clowns [who mgo can't stand] who claim michigan should compete for the national title every year because we have so much more talent than everybody else. that's not the case here. it's takes constant attention to details to keep from slipping, something carr wasn't doing near the end. and quite honestly, it wouldn't take much for usc or ohio state to become irrelevant, as you'd say. in usc's case, an ncaa with a backbone; in osu's, a terrell pryor blown knee [check out their depth chart]. the point is that michigan is relevant enough to turn this around pretty quickly.

and this gem:

M Club wrote:michigan doesn't have lowered expectations. they had realistic expectations for last year and have them again this year. beyond that, the players dickrod recruited will be juniors and hopefully we'll go 6-5 or something.

Like I said, you DO have lowered expectations, you've become OKAY with having lowered expectations ("hopefully" we'll go 6-5...two years from now!!), and right on cue, just as I said you'd say, you rationalized your lowered expectations with the usual loser's lament: You have "realistic" expectations.

Thanks for playing.

i apologize for using sarcasm in only 80% of my posts. i can see why it went over your head. my actual thoughts are that we'll win seven or eight games this year and be in contention for the big ten title during my 6-5 year, provided our lb corps is staffed by decent lbs.

WoverineSteve wrote:Mclub hit it on the head when he said that UM's re-emergence onto the national scene will most likely coincide with the completion of the Stadium overhaul in 2010.

I guess, assuming that hoped for 6-5 season materializes.

I dunno, call me crazy, but I see Michigan's re-emergence under the brighter candlelight of an 11-1 season, a victory over OSU and a win in the Rose Bowl.

Van wrote:mgo, I'd put a lot more stock in Michigan's "run to the national title" season had both Michigan and OSU not gotten blasted in their bowl games.

Look, when you selectively define and dismiss "relevance," that makes things a lot more complicated. You originally brought up the whole competing for titles thingy, and the fact is they actually did compete for a title that year, right to the bitter end, eventual bowl game and your personal value judgment system notwithstanding -- just like Texas, Tech, Mizzou, OSU, USC, and a handful of other teams did this year. They were relevant. They were in the mix, the discussion.

That being said, I'm really not attempting to dress Michigan up as one of the nation's elite because of that one season or anything. I'm really just providing (one) example of how they actually are/have been a tier or two ahead of ND and Nebraska. Then again, I could use even less significant examples than that to prove my point.

Van wrote:You're fucking retarded.

M Club, retarded?

He's a not so distant cousin of Screwed.

Hopefully, you didn't just figure that out.