USA Today ranks Michigan preseason #4

Submitted by Maizen on

At times like these, it’s easy to nitpick through the negatives — and yeah, Michigan has a few. But every program, good and bad, loses players every offseason; every major program has to deal with early departures to the NFL. So instead of focusing on where Michigan may be lacking, consider a few things.

One, how Jim Harbaugh and his staff have been through this before. Two, that there are still more than enough pieces on both sides for this team to be highly successful. And three, how this program is very clearly rocketing into the upper echelon of the Football Bowl Subdivision. Maybe having faith in Harbaugh and his plan makes more sense than simply focusing on issues the Wolverines’ must address before kickoff in September.

FSU, Bama, OSU, and Washington round out the top 5.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/06/19/michigan-wolverines-college-football-early-look/408961001/

Heptarch

June 19th, 2017 at 10:03 PM ^

Nope.  Too high.

Is it out the realm of possibility that the team will be that high when the season is over?  Nope.

But they have a lot to prove before that ranking is justified.

MichiganForever

June 19th, 2017 at 10:04 PM ^

How many times have we seen OSU and little brother over achieve? Hell, even last year with PSU winning the Big Ten?

 

The talent is there to win 10-11 games. Is there any team on our schedule leaps and bounds better? Its time to start over achieving.

Badger

June 19th, 2017 at 10:56 PM ^

If they walk in and smash Florida I'll hop on the hype train. But I'm with the others in thinking I'd rather start in the middle of the polls and just beat teams. Honestly nothing matters unless we can finally beat OSU..

MichiganStan

June 20th, 2017 at 1:29 AM ^

Naw

The beauty of Michigan and the new playoff committee is that we would be given a little boost due to our gigantic fanbase. Lets be honest, the playoff committee defintely picks matchups based on how the NCAA can make the most money. Michigan is a moneymaker therefore they wont screw us. We just need to get CLOSE and theyll do the rest

Shoot they were seriously contemplating putting us in last year with 2 losses

Theres no matchup the NCAA playoff committee would want more than Saban vs Harbaugh, Michigan vs Alabama in the playoffs. That would be one of the most viewed games ever

 

BoFlex

June 20th, 2017 at 1:57 AM ^

That would all be true except if we lose to Ohio State who would have all those same exact factors benefiting them: large fanbase that travels well, and the committee could easily sell a "Urban vs. Saban Part 5: The Tiebreaker" matchup. Most consider Saban and Urban the two best and most accomplished active coaches with 8 national championships combined, and an 2-2 record against each other. It would draw a lot of eyeballs as well.

kurpit

June 19th, 2017 at 11:13 PM ^

Maybe since they're willing just ignore our offseason losses they'll also just ignore out in-season losses and keep us at #4 regardless.

JHumich

June 19th, 2017 at 11:45 PM ^

And the next. And the next.

'Til there are no more games.

Then it really will not have mattered who ranked us where in the preseason.

Because everyone will rank us #1 post-post-season.

(Do we actually have to say that we are homers? I'd be disappointed with anyone who isn't!)

uminks

June 20th, 2017 at 1:03 AM ^

Though, I like starting out ranked lower and let people get surprised.  I think there will be 4 close games and if we win them all we are in the playoffs. If we lose them all then it will be a rebuilding year and the spine will get more steel for the 2018 season.

In 1997 Michigan was ranked # 17 in the preseason. Griese and Dreisbach were fighting for the starting position and a young sophomore named Tom Brady was nipping at their heals to start. Even though I knew the Defense was great, the offense was a big unknown. I was thinking another 4 loss season may be improving to 3 losses.

Eye of the Tiger

June 20th, 2017 at 3:51 AM ^

I mean, sure, I think we'll be pretty good by the end of the year. But #4 preseason, when we only have 6 returning starters? Theoretically possible but highly, highly unlikely.

Top 10? Maybe. 

BoFlex

June 20th, 2017 at 5:44 AM ^

IIRC, the 2016 preseason AP poll had OSU at #6 and they had exactly 6 returning starters as well.

If Michigan is ranked similarly, I feel like that would show that Michigan has become respected as equally as OSU in the eyes of the voters. At least in the preseason haha.

Der Alte

June 20th, 2017 at 8:57 AM ^

Even for a Wolverine whose maize and blue is dyed-in-the wool, a #4 preseason ranking seems a bit of a stretch. No truly elite RB, three new OL starters, green but talented receivers, new CBs to replace a couple of the better ones M has had in recent decades, and so on and so on.

But the D-line? Solomon's arrival and another year for Gary and others make it (somewhat) comparable to last year's. LBs and safeties should be fine. If the CBs come through at all this D should keep M in a few close games, such as in Happy Valley and Camp Randall. 

So who knows? Florida will tell us a lot about how the season will turn out. Go Blue!

Mongo

June 20th, 2017 at 9:22 AM ^

2017 team is more athletic with the influx of the new guys and will play faster - by position group: RB - Evans is +++ athletic, maybe breakout year OL - quicker, more athletic for improvement in run game FB - don't sleep on this group, Mason is dynamic addition to a solid unit QB - same game manager (don't neg that, it is critical) WR - young, but fast and filled with many more higher-ceiling guys TE - tough to replace Butt DL - are you kidding, no drop off here LB - Bush is a missile +++ athletic on blitzes Viper - get ready for Peppers 2.0 FS/SS - upgrade in speed and aggressiveness (more TOs) CB - tough to replace last year's tandem Special teams ? All this speed in space +++ athletic, even better Kicker / Punter ... if ratings hype is true, no drop off here So where are we worse off talent-wise? At TE and CB, that is it. And maybe drop-off there is only temporary with improvements coming by midseason. Talent-wise, this 2017 team in total is better but time will tell if they can make it happen in 2017. However, 2018 is looking like a potential top 4 team.

Kevin13

June 20th, 2017 at 9:25 AM ^

in Harbaugh, but it's foolish to just overlook the issues of having to replace as much as we do. I think Harbaugh and staff will have players ready to go, but there can still be some growing pains with so many young players and knowing there will still be youthful mistakes made in games.

Perkis-Size Me

June 20th, 2017 at 10:24 AM ^

I know rankings are usually useless until about October or so, and those rankings are meant to just generate clicks, but ehh, its the offseason. I'll bite: 

#4 is overly generous in my opinion. I'd expect somewhere between 10-15 to start off. As much as I hate to say it, the only coaches in the country who could lose virtually their entire team and still be considered top 5, bona fide national title contenders are Saban and Meyer. Those two have earned the full benefit of the doubt. Not to say Harbaugh can't get there, but this is a LOT to replace. 

I think the ceiling of the players on the roster, collectively, is higher than what was there last year and the year before. There's a LOT of talent, but its mostly young and very unproven. I do think youth will cost us at least 1 game that we'd otherwise win (like @PSU, @ Wis), but 2018 should be the year where the team really starts to take off. 

MIMark

June 21st, 2017 at 10:19 AM ^

With how much talent just left for the NFL, this is far too high. I like the starters but depth worries me. They need time to develop. I would much rather start around 15 which many would say seems low. It would instill the underdog mentality, especially in depth players. The last thing an unproven team needs is overconfidence.