Rittenberg's Michigan evaluations
Here are his Big Ten rankings for Michigan thus far:
WR/TE: 6
Offensive Line: 5
Quarterbacks: 9
Running backs: 3
Secondary: 8
Linebackers: 5
Defensive Line: 7
Then he ranks us 9th in the Big Ten overall.
This can all be found at espn.com. Go to college football, then click on big ten blog.
Now, I like Adam simply for all of his hard work writing about the Big Ten. However, this is a prime example of why pre season rankings are bs. In every group listed, he never ranks us lower than 9th. In fact, he only ranks us 9th in one category (quarterbacks). Then, very recently he ranks us 9th overall in the conference. That's fu*#*ng retarded.
September fifth can't come soon enough. Go Blue!
August 10th, 2009 at 10:05 PM ^
Retarded is a very mean word .. but i think this could qualify for the use
August 11th, 2009 at 6:24 AM ^
If we can be enlightened enough to have a de facto ban on stuff like O$U, U$C, and MSUcks, then surely we can find a way to refrain from using "retard" or any of its variations, such as "fucktard." Words making fun of the handicapped are things I would expect from an OSU or MSU board: not mgoblog.
August 10th, 2009 at 9:59 PM ^
It's just another example of people predicting us to do poorly this year because of 2008 rather than what they see happening in 2009.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:10 PM ^
It does seem odd, but he does appear to justify it by noting that it;s the same ranking as at the position that he deems totally critical to our success.
Plus it's not as bad as ACC blogger Heather downchecking UVA in part because of losing our offensive coordinator from last year. In three years we never made the top 100 in offense, so it's a little like saying the Lions are screwed because they fired their general manager. I'm not sure the ESPN blogging experiment is working very well.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:12 PM ^
IF (big if) UM turns out the 9th best set of QB's then they will finish well into the bottom half of the Big 10.
August 11th, 2009 at 6:38 AM ^
Two true freshmen being backed up by a bevy of walk-on's and maybe Jason Forcier != a solid QB situation.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^
That's a good point. However given the other rankings he gave us, you'd think he'd still rank us 6th or 7th even assuming our quarterbacks are 9th best in the league. That's why I thought it was so silly.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:11 PM ^
I'm too lazy to do this, but what does each team average combined? On top of that, how closely does his QB rankings reflect his power poll? QB play is probably more important than several other positions, therefore weighting us closer to 9th. And even then, position rankings don't make a team great. Other intangibles, strategies, and match-ups are just as important to the power poll.
I agree that preseason polls are pretty useless and pure speculation. Just don't peg him as "fu*#*ng retarded" based off two separate ideas. There's probably much better examples to prove his ineptitude.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:23 PM ^
Does it even matter how much QB ranking affects his overall ranking? NO. Because every group is rated higher than that minus quarterbacks. Unless of course qb's make up 100 percent of his poll, which I believe I can safely assume they don't. So what's your point? You have no point.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^
Did you even read my post? I wondered if that didn't WEIGH us down a lot, not act as the only metric. Then I mention that the two polls are only partially related AND that other things are more important, such as "intangibles, strategies, and match-ups."
Do I need to act like an ass and repeat myself a third time?
August 10th, 2009 at 10:36 PM ^
about 6.3.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:37 PM ^
I actually meant for each team to see where we ranked. Just interested. Hence the "too lazy" statement.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:11 PM ^
I'd give intangibles about a 7, no sugarcoat.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^
The funny part about this blog is when I point out how someone made a fool of themselves ranking us low, I get formerlyanonymous critiquing my work. That's great. I'm not a great writer, and perhaps I don't think very logically. However, the fact of the matter is you spent time thinking about how to defend the person who rated us so low. You put forth effort to belittle my post, when it in fact does reason correctly. It's almost as if you enjoy us sucking. You are the holy defender of us having a shitty season. How about some rah rah go blue. Is that to much to ask?
August 10th, 2009 at 10:36 PM ^
I wasn't trying to belittle your post, I was just saying that there is a difference between power and positions polls.
I was however belittling your response to me, which apparently was because I was misinterpreted.
I apologize for that, and my tone in the response to yours.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:40 PM ^
I apologize as well. I'm just still worked up from last season, and tired of us getting so much gruff from analysts. Like I said, I do appreciate all the work Adam does writing, because it gives me more to read about college football. So maybe retarded was a bit much. I just need us to win again.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:43 PM ^
My sentiments of Adams exactly. And like I said, there's plenty of other examples to prove his stupidity, and unfortunately I keep reading it too.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:41 PM ^
That coincides with my interpretation of this fracas.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^
He is right to post us at #9 preseason. Just because he finds certain position groups to be rather good doesn't mean the team should be an aggregate average of those groups.
Michigan could have Rittenberg's best QB, RBs, WRs and Offensive line looking towards 2009, but if Michigan turns it over 30 times this year, as it did last year, Michigan will end up 9th in the conference.
Further, he mentioned in his team overall rankings that Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan were interchangeable and that he won't rank Michigan higher until he sees the improvement on the field, which is a reasonable position to take. If he had picked Michigan #7 instead of #9, would you be happy?
August 10th, 2009 at 10:40 PM ^
How a team finishes is not just averaging how each position ranks out. There's a lot more to the game than just having the most talented players - not saying that talent isn't important, just not all that is important.
His list is just saying how talented each unit is. And considering how poorly Michigan played last year with a decent amount of talent, I don't fault him for ranking us low and then waiting to be proved wrong.
It's just a preseason poll.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:49 PM ^
what you consider a decent amount of talent? One starting player returning on O in a new system. QB play which probably ranked 15 out of 11. Highest drafted senior in the fourth round. Take BG and Zoltan away and .....
August 10th, 2009 at 10:56 PM ^
On defense there was certainly a large amount of talent, some of it realized, some of it squandered, but we certainly had a very athletically talented defense last year. I wouldn't say the offense was that talented, perhaps untapped potential since they were filled with freshman. But I would say that UM put more talent on the field than at least 3-5 big ten teams, and performed worse than some of them. Not to say there weren't reasons for this, the youth, new system, and all that...but there was talent on at least half the team last year.
Not that I have anyway to back this up with data, unless we want to trust recruiting stars :)
August 10th, 2009 at 11:01 PM ^
No, I wouldn't.
The problem with so many as it relates to this upcoming year is that they are using last year as a starting point. That may seem logical. But last year was a galactically bizarre intersection of f'ed up circumstances. It is what the many statisticians on this board would call an outlier.
When you run down the player quality vs. teams ranked higher, ours is vastly superior. That quality lacked a system last year as it was too new on offense and too chaotic on defense.
Everything points in the direction of the system having taking hold, with committed players, an easier schedule and a coach with a track record of turnarounds. It is downright insane to use last year as a model (not talking at you, here, just the ESPN twits) if you know a little something about football. With the way this team projects (cause that's all we're doing), I think it is safe to predict we have an excellent shot to win the following games last year:
Utah
ND
Toledo
NW
MSU
Purdue
That produces a 9-3 year. Now, even if one gets away out of that pathetic crowd of games, we are sitting on a completely different season.
So, no, I don't think there are six teams with more skill and better coaching that Michigan. Call me delusional.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:35 PM ^
None of this matters? Surely some of those rankings matter. Surely the way your defensive line performs matters. Maybe the offense line has something to do with it. No, you're right jg2112 none of it matters.
Seriously. Wow. I'm sure some of it matters.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:41 PM ^
Please tell me what effect an ESPN.COM's college football blogger's completely arbitrary ranking of position groups has on Michigan's 2009 football team.
Obviously, you're affected by it. Would you feel better if Michigan was preseason ranked number 4? Why? What Rittenberg thinks of our team will have zero effect on the outcome of Michigan's season. I tend to find that Coach Rod's coaching, preparation, and the strength and conditioning work done in the summer has 100% to do with Michigan's success, not the opinions of some dude blogging in Chicago who hasn't even been to Ann Arbor since last fall.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:47 PM ^
Well. His ranking us 9th I suppose could have the positive effect of making our guys more hungry after reading it. It could also make them less confident in themselves. Who knows. It probably has zero effect. I'm just surprised you don't find it odd given his ratings that he rated us 9th overall.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:55 PM ^
in the conference last year. They haven't done ANYTHING in a game to warrant a higher ranking RIGHT NOW.
I'm a firm believer that the end of season rankings, although arbitrary, should be set in stone at the beginning of the next season, until we have evidence that a team should be moved (after the first game). It's happened many times where teams get artificially over or under ranked due to "gut feelings" or "hunches." I prefer solid evidence.
So, right now, Michigan is 9th, and that's right. I am of the belief that Michigan will go 4-0 to start the season. At that point, they would be ranked 3rd or 4th in the conference (after Penn State, Iowa and maybe Wisconsin). But there's no reason to be so myopic now. We're one CB injury away from another really bad season, IMHE.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:00 PM ^
You would be a very unsuccessful trader. You would lose a lot of money. History does repeat itself. Occasionally. You'd realize this if you had to put money on it.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:01 PM ^
I do agree with you about the CB depth though. Let's hope Turner is cleared. Go Blue, and fun debating.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:50 PM ^
Dude, I get what you're saying, and you often make some good points, but do you have to be such an asshole all the time?
Do you act like this when you talk to people in person? I really hope not.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:00 PM ^
A lot of us here, however, get really affected by things that really have no bearing on what happens on the field. Rittenberg's rankings. Valenti's whining. Maize uniforms.
I'm trying to be realistic and to cut through the fluff. Further, I'm trying to get people to think through what is really affecting them. If it means nothing (what Adam Rittenberg thinks about the Big Ten season means about as much as what I think about the Big Ten season), well, I'm trying to bring some rationality.
Put it this way - all this stuff these bloggers write to agitate us about, when the Wolverines go 12-0 this year, I'm not going to be upset that Rittenberg picked Michigan preseason #9. I won't give it another thought. So, there's no need to give it any thought now.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:01 PM ^
You sound so WLA circa last September it's ridiculous.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:04 PM ^
Scorning too much.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:00 PM ^
We don't deserve anything greater than #9. You have to earn respect, friends. It's not going to be handed to you after a 3-9 season just because you return some starters and get a few freshman. That is what you would call "hype". Once we start to win some games and turn some heads, then we'll merit something more. Relax, and enjoy being under the radar for now. It's a luxury we probably won't be enjoying in the coming years.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:31 PM ^
So I bit with taking all of his rankings and tabulating how it all played out...
Offense
1. Ohio State - 3.5
2. Illinois - 3.75
3. Wisconsin - 4.25
4. Iowa - 4.75
5. Penn State - 5
6. Michigan - 5.75
6. MSU - 6.75
6. Minesota - 6.75
9. Northwestern - 8
10. Purdue - 9.25
11. Indiana - 10.25
Defense
1. Iowa - 2
2. Ohio State - 2.67
3. Penn State - 4
4. Northwestern - 4.67
5. Michigan State - 5.67
6. Michigan - 6.67
7. Wisconsin - 7
8. Minnesota - 7.67
9. Illinois - 8.67
10. Purdue - 9.33
11. Indiana - 9.67
Overall
1. Ohio State - 3.14
2. Iowa - 3.57
3. Penn State - 4.57
4. Wisconsin - 5.42
5. Michigan State - 5.71
6. Illinois - 5.71
7. Michigan - 6.14
8. Northwestern - 6.57
8. Minnesota - 6.57
10. Purdue - 9.28
11. Indiana - 10
So, all in all, I'd say him ranking UM 9th is not really all that off given what he did in the other categories, especially if QB was at all weighted more heavily. There is very little separation between 4th and 8th, and I think that he is right on there. OSU, PSU, and Iowa really should be the best three in the conference, Purde and Indiana should be the worst two, and the rest are a jumble. I think he's done pretty well, actually.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:36 PM ^
excellent work, though I still think Michigan should have been picked numero uno.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:40 PM ^
That's what I was too lazy to do. Wisconsin that high surprises me, even in the jumble. Switch them with Illinois and I'd buy it.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:26 AM ^
I think that Bielema lowers their ranking.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:17 PM ^
We don't play co-#8's Northwestern and Minnesota, so it stands to reason that our Big 10 slate is a bit harder than the average team.
August 11th, 2009 at 12:44 AM ^
one interesting way to look at it: if Penn State (similar talent level) switched coaches and offenses and went 3-9 during a season, and we, having limited exposure to the nuances of why they failed (shooting selves in foot a lot, but the perception is ineptitude), had to rank B10 teams the next year, 9th would seem reasonable as long as you predicted moderate to significant improvement.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:39 AM ^
Like I've said before it is just a pre-season rating so I don't mind. What we will be ranked after the season is what I'm interested in.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:07 AM ^
I feel Adam is VERY hype driven. A person is talked about by a big wig at ESPN and he jumps behind that person tenfold. So, I feel that hype could have pushed many people ahead of us. But hey, what do I know?
August 11th, 2009 at 7:48 AM ^
...which makes its money hyping the hell out of prevailing storylines.
National storylines for 2009:
Tim Tebow.
Colt McCoy v. Sam Bradford.
Bobby Bowden and "is he retiring?"
Big Ten storylines for 2009:
Terrelle Pryor is God.
Illinois is going to be awesome.
Michigan sucked last year and Rich Rod is swarmed with controversy.
Michigan State is a solid team which out-recruits Michigan in-state.
Pre-season rankings charts are simply a means to get to these talking points. If you disagree with the talking points, well, then you get riled up and keep going back, allowing ESPN to rack up the pageviews.
When Michigan does well this year, you can chalk up this storyline for 2010:
Rich Rod is a genius, always turns teams around in 2 years, can they make the Rose Bowl?
August 16th, 2009 at 1:42 PM ^
The thing that bothers me about the "MSU out-recruits Michigan in-state" thing is that we're ranked 10th currently in Rivals 2010 class (source: http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp). MSU is ranked 19th. Why should we care if they "out recruit us in-state" (a far overblown assertion IMHO) if our overall class is better? Our star-average is slightly better, and we still have a few four-star-ish prospects that seem decent shots at committing. Maybe we'll even get lucky and peg someone highly touted somewhere during this season if we show enough improvement.
All of this "in-state recruiting" and "obsession" stuff is just summer fluff that further proves that fall needs to get here. Fast.
August 11th, 2009 at 6:39 AM ^
I assumed this post was a year old.