2019 Michigan Season Thread

[FearlessF]

Miami and FSU are not helmet schools.

but, possibly could be in another 50 years

[SFBadger96]

Who knows what will happen when King Barry hangs 'em up. Fitz, Kirk, etc.

One of the most remarkable things about the Wisconsin run is that it has succeeded under three coaches post Barry. Even Andersen had good teams (and left at the right time). I think (and hope) Chryst is a long-term solution, but one thing that is clear is that as long as it hold onto its core identity, Wisconsin is in good shape. More than anything else, that appears to be the Alvarez legacy.

The biggest danger--and Barry learned this the hard way--is that Wisconsin tries to fly too close to the sun that is college football's elite.

[MrNubbz]

FSU and Miami have too much recruiting talent in their backyard

This^^^^^,unless UCF becomes a power or Clemson/Bama/Gawja/FLA continually pinch the talent pool,they'll be back IMO

[Cincydawg]

Miami and FSU are "up there somewhere" schools with some helmet value that has been an asset in recruiting in the past.

Imagine some 4+ or 5 star kid in say Kansas considering possible programs.  He gets a lot of mail.  How much does he open?  If Texas calls, he opens the letter, duh.

USC?  Probably.  Minnesota?  Probably not, unless it's the only one of the day.  Minny just doesn't get his juices flowing.

FSU and Miami?  Obviously in 2000 that would be exciting, but today?  Kind of meh.

There is a lot of talent in Florida obviously, but it gets split amongst several programs, unlike say Ohio which has one program to watch.

Michigan has a lower population that does Georgia now.

[FearlessF]

This^^^^^,unless UCF becomes a power or Clemson/Bama/Gawja/FLA continually pinch the talent pool,they'll be back IMO

regardless what other programs do or don't, if FSU and or Miami get the right guy in charge with the proper support of the University, they will get the talent and win big

[FearlessF]

most kids from Kansas are going to open something from Florida, they have beaches

that's how UCF and South Florida got going

[Cincydawg]

I'm talking elite level players, guys focused on playing on Sunday, not guys thinking about beaches.

I ASSUME these players with few exceptions evaluate their options based on where they can get to the NFL fastest and bestest.

Clemson is not a markedly attractive region (it's not awful) but we see a lot of elite players now going there.  This is a reverse example.

[medinabuckeye1]

We discussed this a couple offseasons ago.  I guess none of the helmets have gone through an extended period of mediocrity, but it's almost like once college football became a national sport, instead of a regional one, in the 70s and 80s, it somehow locked in the helmet schools.

Not this again, LoL.  

I continue to believe that nothing is permanent so I disagree with this idea, usually advanced by @Anonymous Coward , that the "Helmet" teams were locked-in circa the mid 1970's and can never change.  

That said, I think that it takes a LOT less to MAINTAIN helmet status than it takes to OBTAIN helmet status.  Basically, my view is that all a team needs to do to maintain helmet status is to be good enough to be talked about.  A helmet doesn't actually have to win the big games to maintain their status they just have to be good enough to be involved in big games.  Looking at Michigan specifically:

• 2018:  They finished an "ok" 10-3, but in late November they were 10-1 and ranked #4 heading into THE GAME against #10.  That is enough to maintain their status because it created a humongous matchup.  
• 2017:  They finished a very mediocre 8-5 but at one point they were 8-2 and ranked #19.  That isn't great but it was enough to get them into the conversation.  
• 2016:  They finished an "ok" 10-3 but in early November they 9-0 and ranked #2.  Even after the upset loss to Iowa they got back to #3 at 10-1 heading into THE GAME against #3.  #2 v #3 is always a HUGE game and Michigan was in it.  That was enough to maintain their status.  
• 2015:  They finished an "ok" 10-3 but they entered THE GAME 9-2 and ranked #12.  That wasn't great but it was enough to get them into the conversation.  
• 2012:  They finished a very mediocre 8-5 but they entered THE GAME 8-3 and ranked #20.  Again, not great but enough to be talked about.  
• 2011:   They finished 11-2 but they got to 6-0 and #11 before their first loss.  Not great but enough to be talked about.  
• 2006:  They finished a very disappointing 11-2 but they got up to 11-0 and #2 heading into THE GAME against #1.  #1 v #2 is always a HUGE game and Michigan was in it.  That was enough to maintain their status.  

All-in-all, in nearly half of the last 15 seasons Michigan has been a name that any CFB fan would have at least considered once or twice during the season.  That is more than enough to maintain helmet status.  

NOTE:  As I noted above, I believe that helmet status is MUCH harder to get than it is to keep.  As I tried to explain above, teams that already have helmet status don't need to WIN big games to keep helmet status, they just need to get into big games.  For a non-helmet to obtain helmet status they need to WIN big games, conference titles, and national championships and they need to do it consistently.  For example, if somehow Michigan ends up playing Minnesota in the B1GCG this year, the result of the game will have no bearing on Michigan's helmet status.  Michigan will have already maintained their helmet status simply by getting into a big game.  The result would be extremely important to Minnesota's potential helmet status because Minnesota can't achieve helmet status without big wins.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Looking at some other helmet or potential helmet teams, and their worst 15 year stretch in the past 50 years (going back to Bo's hiring).  Obviously UM could still accomplish a bunch of things this season

Michigan - 2005-2019 (0 Big 10 titles, 0 division titles, 2 AP Top 10 finishes, 4 major bowls, 3 losing seasons)
Alabama - 1993-2007 (1 SEC title, 3 division titles, 3 AP Top 10 finishes, 2 major bowls, 3 losing seasons)
Oklahoma - 1987-2001 (2 Big 8/12 titles, 1 division title, 1 National Title, 3 AP Top 10 finishes, 3 major bowls, 3 losing seasons)
Texas - 1978-1992 (2 SWC titles, 3 AP Top 10 finishes, 3 major bowls, 4 losing seasons)
USC - 1987-2001 (5 Pac 10 titles, 2 AP Top 10 finishes, 5 major bowls, 2 losing seasons)
Ohio State - 1987-2001 (3 Big 10 titles, 3 AP Top 10 finishes, 3 major bowls, 1 losing season)
Notre Dame - 1996-2011 (1 AP Top 10 finish, 3 major bowls, 4 losing seasons)
Nebraska - 2004-2018 (0 Big 12/10 titles, 4 division titles, 0 AP Top 10 finishes, 1 major bowl, 5 losing seasons)
Tennessee - 2004-2018 (0 SEC titles, 2 division titles, 0 AP Top 10 finishes, 1 major bowl, 8 losing seasons)
Penn State - 2000-2014 (2 Big 10 titles, 1 division title, 3 AP Top 10 finishes, 2 major bowls, 4 losing seasons)

Tennessee really stood out to me on this list.  They are last or close to it on every measure that you used:

• 0 league titles:  Tied with Michigan and Nebraska.  
• 2 division titles:  Behind every other team that had a division that they could have won for at least most of their specific 15 years.  
• 0 AP Top-10 finishes:  Tied with Nebraska.  
• 1 major bowl:  Tied with Nebraska.  
• 8 losing seasons:  Worst by far, Nebraska is next worst with five and none of the others have more than four.  

I've always thought that the biggest problem for Tennessee has been that a lot of their neighbors got better which made for tougher competition for recruits.  Clemson is a historic high, UGA is better than their long-term average, Bama is Bama, etc.  

[Cincydawg]

It's trite to note it, but IF a program makes 4-5 bad coaching hires in a row .... it can kill it's helmetosity.  The first couple start an ebb and then recruiting gets tougher for the last two guys and then losing seasons and inept performances boost them near the edge of the CFB map.

Anyone have data on Minnesota after their great run?  Did they slowly fade or was it more of a collapse?

[847badgerfan]

Minnesota is 263-324-5 since they won their last (shared) Big Ten title in 1967. Prior to that, their record was 431-194-36, with 18 Big Ten championships and 7 MNC's. 

But, if you go back to 1941, Minnesota had 16 Big Ten championships and 6 MNC's. It's record was 306-94-25.

From 1942 through 1967 the record was 125-103-11, with 2 Big Ten championships and 1 MNC.

So, which is the inflection point? 1941, or 1967?

[Cincydawg]

As we are discussing how fast a near Blue Blood can decline, it would be 1967.

I imagine recruiting was far far different in 1967 (duh) and image probably was less of a factor then (arguably) for elite recruits.  I think back then coaches recruited more on what their fans told them about certain players around the state and region.  ND recruited nationally of course, maybe USC, probably nobody else (??).

[MrNubbz]

Ya with instant messaging,cell phones,texting,24/7mega media and information everywhere,recruiting no doubt is much harder than even 2 decades ago

[Cincydawg]

The Gophers were pretty mediocre for much of the 50s and 60s anyway.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/minnesota/index.html

In 1960, they were voted Number 1 because the Rose Bowl loss didn't count and they were 8-2.

So, the transition probably is closer to 1941, with a few up seasons thereafter.  I'm not sure we can discern much from pre1941 results relevant today.