Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

it's unfortunate that Doc Tom didn't stay on as AD to help Solich as Devaney did for Tom.

It's interesting how rare winning 90+% of your games is.  That would be 9-1 "back in the day" obviously, a very very good year.  Given a very very good team probably only plays 2-3 teams that realistically could beat them, it's more like being 2-1.

It's interesting how rare winning 90+% of your games is.  That would be 9-1 "back in the day" obviously, a very very good year.  Given a very very good team probably only plays 2-3 teams that realistically could beat them, it's more like being 2-1.

It isn't that it is tough to go 2-1 in your "losable" games, it is that it is REALLY tough to do that every single year for a decade.  Schools usually have a bad year somewhere in there.  Ohio State is a great example.  Over the last eight years (2012-2019) the Buckeyes are a spectacular 99-10 or .9083.  The problem is that the Buckeyes were a pedestrian 6-7 in 2011 (year between Tressel and Meyer) and they are credited with just 0-1 in 2010 (wins vacated).  

I'm only using my team as the example because it is current and I know them the best.  I'm sure you could find LOTS of examples of 10-year periods when these schools would have been .900 "but for" one or two off years that just sunk them.  Also note that it doesn't take much of a bad year to prevent you from getting to .900 for a decade.  Even with today's expanded schedules you can only take about 13-14 losses in ten years.  If you average one loss per year over eight great years that is eight and leaves you with five or six losses that you can afford in your off years so those off years can't be all that bad.  You can still only lose 2-3 games per year in the bad years.  

Bama's current decade is a great example.  They are just under .900 at .8921.  That decade for them consists of:

• 10-3 in 2010
• 12-1 in 2011
• 13-1 in 2012
• 11-2 in 2013
• 12-2 in 2014
• 14-1 in 2015
• 14-1 in 2016
• 13-1 in 2017
• 14-1 in 2018
• 11-2 in 2019

Their worst year was 10-3 and they STILL didn't make it to .900.  For the decade (2010-2019) they are 124-15.  To get to .900 with 15 losses you need 135 wins which would have required 11 more games.  

Yup, for a decade, it's impressive, amazing really, for reasons noted.

Medina:

Born in 1954 and not seeing college football even on TV until New Year's Day of 1963, and not being aware of the national picture until about the 1967 season, I have always considered Michigan an elite program.  An elite program that has had some bad luck over the past 15 years or so.

But your analysis makes me wonder.

If Michigan football had begun in 1927 rather than 1881, would Michigan be a helmet program?  Or would it be a good program that had had two periods of greatness under Fritz Crisler and Bo Schembechler?

I agree with your point that Bo gets underrated.

On the other hand, a lot of the additional games for the elite teams (those anywhere close to .900 for a decade) are decidedly NOT easy games. 

If your team plays 15 games it is likely because they made their CCG and the CFPCG.  Those are REALLY tough games an nobody is going .900 in CCG's and CFPCG's. 

For the three teams that *COULD* make .900 over 2012-2021 their record in CCG's and CFPCG's so far (2012-2019) is:
Ohio State:

• 4-1 in B1GCG's (L, MSU 2013; W, UW 2014; W, UW 2017; W, NU 2018; W, UW 2019)
• 1-0 in CFPCG's (W, Ore 2014)
• 5-1 or .8333 overall

Alabama:

• 5-0 in SECCG's (W, UGA 2012; W, Mizzou 2014; W, UF 2015; W, UF 2016; W, UGA 2018)
• 2-2 in CFPCG's (W, Clem 2015; L, Clem 2016; W, UGA 2017; L, Clem 2018)
• 7-2 or .7778 overall

Clemson:

• 5-0 in ACCCG's (W, UNC 2015; W, VaTech 2016; W, Miami 2017; W, Pitt 2018; W, UVA 2019)
• 2-2 in CFPCG's (L, Bama 2015; W, Bama 2016; W, Bama 2018; L, LSU 2019)
• 7-2 or .7778 overall

Even though these three teams have dominated their CCG's over the past 8+ years with a combined record of 14-1 or .9333 they obviously can't collectively dominate CFPCG's if for no other reason than they run into each other.  Combined they are barely over .500 in CFCG's at 5-4 with two wins (tOSU over Ore and Bama over UGA) and one loss (Clem to LSU) coming against other teams while the other three wins/losses were splits by Clemson/Bama in the CFPCG.  Ie, they can't both win. 

While true, if they lose any one of those, they generally aren't going to play any more, so it's just one more loss.

Medina:

Born in 1954 and not seeing college football even on TV until New Year's Day of 1963, and not being aware of the national picture until about the 1967 season, I have always considered Michigan an elite program.  An elite program that has had some bad luck over the past 15 years or so.

But your analysis makes me wonder.

If Michigan football had begun in 1927 rather than 1881, would Michigan be a helmet program?  Or would it be a good program that had had two periods of greatness under Fritz Crisler and Bo Schembechler?

I agree with your point that Bo gets underrated.

First, the 60's are a difficult time to analyze because from 1962-1967 the AP Poll (one of my favorite metrics normally) only included 10 teams. 

It is interesting to me that you considered Michigan elite starting circa 1967 because at that time and leading up to it:
1967:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-6
1966:  Michigan was ranked 9th and 8th respectively in the first two polls then lost three straight and never got back, finishing 6-4
1965:  Michigan was ranked 4th, 4th, and 7th in the first three polls then lost four straight and never got back, finishing 4-6
1964:  Michigan was unranked in the preseason and again in one poll (immediately after their loss to PU) but other than that they were ranked all year finishing 9-1 and #4 with a RB win over Oregon State
1963:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 3-4-2
1962:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 2-7
1961:  Michigan was ranked in a couple early polls and received votes in the final (pre-bowl) poll.  They finished 6-3
1960:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 5-4
1959:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-5
1958:  Michigan was ranked (barely, high-teens) in three early polls but finished 2-6-1

So in the decade prior to when you were first aware of the national picture, Michigan had been nationally relevant once.  If you go back even further, Michigan's RB winning 9-1/#4 season in 1964 was their only season with less than two losses between their undefeated season in 1948 and Bo's second year of 1970.  Ie, from 1949-1969 Michigan was nationally relevant in one out of 21 years.  

It is interesting that Michigan's improvement actually started in 1968 (Bump Elliott's last year).  In 1968 Michigan was ranked almost all year peaking at #4 in the 11/11 and 11/18 polls before getting drilled 50-14 by #2 Ohio State on 11/23.  Still, they finished 8-2 and #12.  

In 1969 the Wolverines were:

• Unranked preseason*
• got into the Poll after a couple early wins (Vandy, Washington)
• fell back out after a bad home loss to #9 Mizzou
• got back in after a win over #9 Purdue on 10/11
• fell back out after a loss to unranked MSU on 10/18
• got back in and climbed to #12 with wins over MN, UW, IL, and IA (all finished .500 or worse)
• jumped to #7 with a win over #1 Ohio State
• lost the RB and finished 8-3 and #9

Then Michigan became almost super-elite.  From 1970-2007 they were:

• #1 in AP Poll appearances with 560 (91.7% out of 611).  
• #2 in AP top-10 appearances with 356 (58.3% out of 611).  
• #3 in AP top-5 appearances with 207 (33.9% out of 611).  

So for the 38 seasons from 1970-2007 the Wolverines were ranked in about 9-out-of-10 polls, top-10 in about 3-out-of-5 polls, and top-5 in about 1-out-of-three polls.  

Comparison, from 1949-1967 they were:

• #13 in AP Poll appearances with 82 (36.8% out of 223)
• #16 (tied with UMD) in AP top-10 appearances with 51 (22.9% of 223)
• #17 (tied with Ark and ILL) in AP top-5 appearances with 24 (10.8% out of 223)

Those figures from 1949-1967 show how "not elite" they were.  

*Above I noted that the Wolverines were unranked to start the 1969 season.  I think this demonstrates that they were NOT really a helmet at that time.  They got as high as #4 in 1968 and finished #12.  Helmet teams that get as high as #4 and finish #12 ALWAYS start the next season ranked.  Michigan didn't because they weren't.