NCAA Football '11-'12

[OttoVonBismarck]

How so?

I don't necessarily agree with Rodriguez's scorched earth policy, and I've never agreed with a total lack of defense in college football. I said that worked at West Virginia because they don't have fans like grumbler who prattle on about x number of years of straight bowl trips and winning seasons and act like someone raped their cat because those streaks ended.

[grumbler]

Wait so you make fun of the grumblers in your first point and then make it sound like they were perfectly justified in your second point. 

Actually, he isn't making fun of me, since his restatement of my argument is a complete strawman. 

His assertion that the current regime at Michigan (which is doing exactly what I urged Rodriguez to do) will not restore Michigan's standing as an elite program also seems like a pretty blinkered viewpoint.  Let's get that quoted here so he cannot deny saying it.

(snip) The reason this was going to be fatal for him at Michigan is because of UM fans like grumbler who live in the past and don't realize SEC schools that are allowed to recruit 1.5 HS GPA blacks who can't read or write and/or pay for players have made the B1G and its antiquated ways irrelevant and Michigan will never be the sort of power it once was. 

My prediction is that Michigan will win a national championship within the next six years, and that they will win at least 74% of their games over that span (that's their historical average).

[jimmy olsen]

While I could easily seeing them winning 3/4ths of their games winning a national championship is a much more difficult prospect, especially for a non SEC team. I don't really see how anyone could guarantee it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

We all know Michigan's historical win %, but what's their win % when you don't factor in the pre-television era?

I think something both Michigan and Notre Dame share in common is their historical win % is impressive, but if you look at say, 1960-Present or 1980-Present you get a clearer picture of who is relevant in the current generation of college football.

Just as a random fact, since World War II Oklahoma actually leads the nation in win % at 76.5%.

I still give Michigan cred though, since the 80s or so I'd rank them at least in the Top 15 overall, maybe my Top 10. I'd have to type a list up to really know. I can't see them in my Top 5 because there's just not enough room. No way they get in over Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Miami, LSU since 1980. Since 1980 even Penn State is arguably better but their greatness is weighted more in the 1980s than the last 15 years. And given many years of dominance over Michigan it'd be hard to rank Ohio State lower in any regard.

In the next six years I predict Michigan will go to at least two Rose Bowls. I'll say maybe 50/50 chance of playing for an NC, I won't predict if they'll win one because once you get there it's really impossible to say what happens.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The big problem Michigan is going to have is it looks like maybe the B1G is now going to be more competitive. Even relatively recently it's been a two-team show, but with Nebraska and Wisconsin and Michigan State being good and probably not flash in the pan good, I don't know that Michigan will win like it used to. Neither will Ohio State for that matter.

Will OSU continue to win more B1G championships than the rest of the league over the next decade? I wouldn't be surprised. Will Michigan be #2 in that regard? Perhaps, wouldn't shock me. (But neither would Nebraska or Wiscy.) I just don't think you'll see the level of true dominance by the two traditional Big 10 powers like you saw in the historical Big 10 ever come back.

[grumbler]

How so?

I don't necessarily agree with Rodriguez's scorched earth policy, and I've never agreed with a total lack of defense in college football. I said that worked at West Virginia because they don't have fans like grumbler who prattle on about x number of years of straight bowl trips and winning seasons and act like someone raped their cat because those streaks ended.

My issue with RichRod was that he can't coach players, only schemes.  There was no dearth of talent at Michigan when he took over, and he could easily have won six games his first year with the players he had, had he the skill to use them as their skills allowed.  Ryan Mallet would clearly have been a better QB than Nick Sheridan, had Rodriguez known how to coach a drop-back passer.  As it was, Rodriguez didn't, and so Mallet wisely moved on. 

If that makes me a bad fan in your eyes, i can certainly live with that.  I'd argue that my complaints about RichRod (which have to do with football) are more well-reasoned than yours 9which have to do with your mis-perception of me as a fan).

[grumbler]

While I could easily seeing them winning 3/4ths of their games winning a national championship is a much more difficult prospect, especially for a non SEC team. I don't really see how anyone could guarantee it.

I don't think anyone can guarantee a national championship, either.  One can predict it, but one cannot guarantee it, IMO.

[Berkut]

IT is going to be interesting.

RR seems to be making it clear that he would be bringing his run spread option to town with him. Arizona has been running a straight passing spread option (and running it pretty well) for the last several years, and that is one reason we have a pretty damn good backup QB (Matt Scott) who is fast as hell sitting on the bench while a damn good drop back passer (Nick Foles) is setting Arizona passing records.

Scott will be a senior next year, and is likely to be a perfect fit for the new system. We have a freshman running back who has looked brilliant this year, and a ridiculously deep group at WR next year, even though we lose Criner. The O-line this year has been problematic, but they are all extremely young, and have gotten much, much better, and will all be returning next year.

However, Savage, our probably QB of the future, is fucked - he is a straight up drop back passer.

Rodriguez, from an offensive standpoint, has a LOT to work with next year.

[grumbler]

We all know Michigan's historical win %, but what's their win % when you don't factor in the pre-television era?

From 1980 until RR's arrival, Michigan's win % was 77%.

I think something both Michigan and Notre Dame share in common is their historical win % is impressive, but if you look at say, 1960-Present or 1980-Present you get a clearer picture of who is relevant in the current generation of college football.

I think Michigan's winning % since 1980 exceeds their historical win % by a hair, at 74% (that includes the debacle of the Rodriguez years).  How is 74% historically impressive, but 74% currently "irrelevant?"

Just as a random fact, since World War II Oklahoma actually leads the nation in win % at 76.5%.

You can find a figure to match pretty much anything you want to assert.  what is Oklahoma's record since 1980?

I still give Michigan cred though, since the 80s or so I'd rank them at least in the Top 15 overall, maybe my Top 10. I'd have to type a list up to really know. I can't see them in my Top 5 because there's just not enough room. No way they get in over Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Miami, LSU since 1980. Since 1980 even Penn State is arguably better but their greatness is weighted more in the 1980s than the last 15 years. And given many years of dominance over Michigan it'd be hard to rank Ohio State lower in any regard.

What are the winning %'s of those superior teams, since 1980?  Florida, I'll give you.  They've never finished unbeaten in their history, IIRC, but they have put up a lot of great teams.  Nebraska?  I think Michigan has finished ahead of them as many times as reverse since 1980. Penn State?  Michigan has finished ranked ahead of Penn State 18 times since 1980; Penn State has done the reverse 9 times.  Ohio State's "dominance" of Michigan is reflected in their 14-15-1 record since 1980! 

I think you don't know what you are talking about.

[OttoVonBismarck]

If you read my post carefully you will note a few things.

Firstly, I asked what Michigan's win % was since 1980. I asked because I did not know, my perception was it was lower, but I asked because perception =/= reality.

Secondly, I said I couldn't rank Michigan above x number of teams because I viewed them as more dominant since 1980. I didn't say "had a better winning percentage." Obviously more goes into dominance than winning percentage, and I think we all agree on that.

Michigan won a single split national championship since 1980. Penn State has won two consensus, Nebraska has won three (one split), Miami has won five, Oklahoma has won two, LSU has won two (one split), Florida has won three.

The reason I said Penn State is "arguably" better is because they won two consensus national championships in the 1980s, and they are usually "decent" in any given year. The reason I didn't say they are definitely better is my "feeling" is they are inferior to Michigan since 1980 mostly because PSU has done mediocre since joining the Big 10 and had some very embarrassing years in the early 2000s. National championships aren't everything, but they aren't "nothing" either. If a team won a consensus national championship and then never did anything else, that's problematic. But the five teams I've named (LSU, Florida, Oklahoma, Miami, Nebraska) have won lots of conference championships and lots of games since 1980, it's hard to argue any of those schools are flash in the pan. In the case of Florida they weren't even very successful prior to Spurrier (their first NC was in 1996.)

In any case though, the actual win percentage numbers roughly bear out my feelings on the matter, the only omission is I didn't think of Florida State who is definitely top 5 since 1980.



I guess you were confused on your numbers grumbler 

The only team I was really off the mark on is LSU, I guess I forgot how bad they were prior to the mid-90s.

[grumbler]

Best graphic of the week:

[grumbler]

I guess you were confused on your numbers grumbler   

Check your numbers again, Otto.  Michigan is 280-105-5 since the start of the 1980 season. 

I did get the winning % wrong, though.  It was 72.4%, not 74%.  Hasty transcribing.

[MadBurgerMaker]

That's probably from Stassen, which only goes through 2010 right now.   Michigan is 9-2 though, right?  Should be 280-106-5.

That's .716, since we seem to be interested in that for some reason.

[Valmy]

Best graphic of the week:

Meh they all do that when they do the sweep.  Got to love K-State though.  I love teams built like they are.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I guess you were confused on your numbers grumbler   

Check your numbers again, Otto.  Michigan is 280-105-5 since the start of the 1980 season. 

I did get the winning % wrong, though.  It was 72.4%, not 74%.  Hasty transcribing.

As Valmy said, that's from Stassen which only runs through the most recently completed season. So the numbers for all of the teams here would change if included this season, so it's mostly a wash that I didn't. Especially since almost every team on that list is having a > 80% this season, all of them would have slightly higher numbers.

The real reason I didn't include through this active season is:

1. Would involve manual work for 10 teams
2. Season is still ongoing so it isn't reasonable to guess what their win % for the season will be. In theory OU, Michigan, Florida et al could lose every game from here to the end of the season or etc.