February 2019 Preseason Rankings - Texas #4

[Blackshirts BLVD]

This might help. Despite both schools being the biggest in their respective states:

• The Wolverines typically have the best CFB team in Michigan
• The Longhorns typically aren't even in the Top 2 in Texas

I want to say fair point, BUT Michigan only has Michigan St as a potential hump for state dominance as Central, Western, and Eastern Michigan don't ever seem to add up to much. Plus technically speaking (by records) Michigan has actually struggled to have the better record since Carr left. Harbaugh has done alright, but I don't think Michigan fans feel he has delivered as much or as quick as they hoped he would.

Texas has to deal with Rice, UTEP, Texas St, SMU, North Texas, UTSA, Houston, Baylor, A&M, T-Tech, and TCU. Just give the whole state its own conference. But 4 of those are P5 programs compared to Michigans 1 other in MSU. I agree that Texas has better resources, but the fight is bigger there too. EVERYONE tries to recruit out of Texas.

My big thing is that Michigan has played 231 teams that are NOT in the FBS division. While Texas has only played 136... otherwise I think it is relatively clear that Texas is worse lol. That 100+ game difference of playing WEAK ASS competition has inflated Michigan records, wins, rankings, bowl games/appearances, etc... it could change the entire dynamic and historical relevancy of that team/school in football and that is hard to overlook.

Believe me, as a Nebraska fan, I would much rather prefer to say Texas is more overrated that Michigan. I think it is clear that they both are, but I am just not such which is worse lol.

 

[olympicoscar]

Most Overrated Program of All Time

Top 10 in winnings all time.

 

[Rolltide94]

One thing you can count on is tejas will underachieve.

Nobody underachieves like tejas. NOBODY

USC says hold my beer.

 

[Jtrain80]

Top 10 in winnings all time.

I have been meaning to ask you how it feels to root for that flag planting Baker Mayfield?

 

[7Samurai13]

I want to say fair point, BUT Michigan only has Michigan St as a potential hump for state dominance as Central, Western, and Eastern Michigan don't ever seem to add up to much. Plus technically speaking (by records) Michigan has actually struggled to have the better record since Carr left. Harbaugh has done alright, but I don't think Michigan fans feel he has delivered as much or as quick as they hoped he would.

Texas has to deal with Rice, UTEP, Texas St, SMU, North Texas, UTSA, Houston, Baylor, A&M, T-Tech, and TCU. Just give the whole state its own conference. But 4 of those are P5 programs compared to Michigans 1 other in MSU. I agree that Texas has better resources, but the fight is bigger there too. EVERYONE tries to recruit out of Texas.

My big thing is that Michigan has played 231 teams that are NOT in the FBS division. While Texas has only played 136... otherwise I think it is relatively clear that Texas is worse lol. That 100+ game difference of playing WEAK ASS competition has inflated Michigan records, wins, rankings, bowl games/appearances, etc... it could change the entire dynamic and historical relevancy of that team/school in football and that is hard to overlook.

Believe me, as a Nebraska fan, I would much rather prefer to say Texas is more overrated that Michigan. I think it is clear that they both are, but I am just not such which is worse lol.

So you are going to dismiss everyone in the state of Michigan that’s not MSU, but pretend that SMU, UTEP, Rice, Houston, UTSA, North Texas, TTech are eating up all the high end talent? Texas’s problem is Texas. 80% of that state’s recruits grew up longhorn fans and would love to play for them. But you have a coaching staff have 3 straight Heisman winners, who wanted to come to Texas, tell them that they wouldn’t be shot at quarterback and the only position they could play would be on defense. Coincidentally, during that time, was when the Texas program went to shit.

After that you have to shit hires at head coach further digging the grave for that program. The amount of quality talent in Texas is at least 5 to 1 compared to the state of Michigan and I would bet it’s closer to 10 to 1.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Top 10 in winnings all time.

True, but also isn't the best metric to judge a team. Out of the top ten in wins... Michigan has played more NON FBS teams than Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Alabama, USC, Notre Dame, and Tennessee. Only being beaten out by Ohio St and Penn St.

Difference here is when you account for other factors. Such as out of those aforementioned teams... Penn St, Ohio St, USC, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, and Alabama beat them out in Bowl games.

Nebraska and Oklahoma beat them out in Conference titles.

Texas, Nebraska, USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Ohio St, and Alabama beat them out in weeks ranked #1.

And many of Michigans national titles are suspect. GRANTED, most of that is due to the ricidulous amount of sharing that occurred back then. But of those 11 claimed titles... 5 occurred where other teams had better records (6 if you include 1997 where Nebraska went 13-0 and Michigan went 12-0) and were also awarded national title honors. And only 3 since the start of the AP era (1947,1948,1997).


All I am saying is that playing a lot of cupcakes can dilute many other factors such as wins and even bowl games for that matter.


I think I have attacked Michigan a lot on this board, but realistically, I don't dislike Michigan. I only believe that the hype that constantly surrounds the team is unfounded, overblown, and thusly overrated.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

So you are going to dismiss everyone in the state of Michigan that’s not MSU, but pretend that SMU, UTEP, Rice, Houston, UTSA, North Texas, TTech are eating up all the high end talent? Texas’s problem is Texas. 80% of that state’s recruits grew up longhorn fans and would love to play for them. But you have a coaching staff have 3 straight Heisman winners, who wanted to come to Texas, tell them that they wouldn’t be shot at quarterback and the only position they could play would be on defense. Coincidentally, during that time, was when the Texas program went to shit.

After that you have to shit hires at head coach further digging the grave for that program. The amount of quality talent in Texas is at least 5 to 1 compared to the state of Michigan and I would bet it’s closer to 10 to 1.

I don't disagree. My statement was more in relation to LongTimeSooner saying that Michigan typically has the best record of Michigan schools, while Texas struggles. So I was pointing out that 1) Michigan has struggled as well in terms of overall record with other Michigan schools and 2) Their is a lot more competition in Texas... not just in terms of Texas schools but also in terms of recruiting. I believe wholeheartedly that Texas has more talent than the state of Michigan, but EVERY college team tries to recruit out of there because it is a hot bed for talent.

As I said, I think it is a toss up. Both are somewhat overrated, but I don't know which one I would say is more overrated.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Tough to say... in the past, I have called Michigan the most overrated blue blood program. So I compared some overall records.

Michigan has played 1,008 current Power 5 opponents over the course of their history. This includes Notre Dame, but not BYU or Army or any other independent. That is 75% of their opponents are P5.

Texas has played 909 current Power 5 opponents over their history. That is 69% of their opponents are P5.

Some caveats are that these obviously don't include the likes of Rice, SMU, or Houston due to them not being currently P5 schools. Also Michigan has played 231 Non-FBS games whereas Texas has only played 136.

Tough call.

I don't think either are "over rated". The problem here is that we're arguing on a different scale. We're talking about two programs that do often get ranked high in pre-season rankings. There's not a lot of room to go up from #4 ranked, so if Texas finishes #5 in the country, they'd fall into the "over rated" category. Meanwhile, teams that don't often get ranked in these pre-season rankings, often find themselves in the top 25 "under ranked". It's just a different scale. In the last 25 years Texas has finished top 10, 7 times. Top 25, 16 times. Michigan has 6, top 10 finishes and 18, top 25 finishes in the last 25 years. So all I'm saying here is that some context needs to be put here. And those stats include a significant down-period for both teams.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

True, but also isn't the best metric to judge a team. Out of the top ten in wins... Michigan has played more NON FBS teams than Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Alabama, USC, Notre Dame, and Tennessee. Only being beaten out by Ohio St and Penn St.

Difference here is when you account for other factors. Such as out of those aforementioned teams... Penn St, Ohio St, USC, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, and Alabama beat them out in Bowl games.

Nebraska and Oklahoma beat them out in Conference titles.

Texas, Nebraska, USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Ohio St, and Alabama beat them out in weeks ranked #1.

And many of Michigans national titles are suspect. GRANTED, most of that is due to the ricidulous amount of sharing that occurred back then. But of those 11 claimed titles... 5 occurred where other teams had better records (6 if you include 1997 where Nebraska went 13-0 and Michigan went 12-0) and were also awarded national title honors. And only 3 since the start of the AP era (1947,1948,1997).


All I am saying is that playing a lot of cupcakes can dilute many other factors such as wins and even bowl games for that matter.


I think I have attacked Michigan a lot on this board, but realistically, I don't dislike Michigan. I only believe that the hype that constantly surrounds the team is unfounded, overblown, and thusly overrated.

Again, context. No doubt, Michigan wasn't awarded many titles in the modern era of football but most major programs got their start around the same time, competed in the same era and competed against a lot of the same garbage teams. They didn't win national titles, Michigan did.

Honestly, I think in another 50 years we'll probably be talking about the non-playoff titles in the same tone that people talk about wins pre-1940.

 

[olympicoscar]

I have been meaning to ask you how it feels to root for that flag planting Baker Mayfield?

Doesn't really bother me. Browns will be in the playoffs this year.

 

[olympicoscar]

True, but also isn't the best metric to judge a team. Out of the top ten in wins... Michigan has played more NON FBS teams than Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Alabama, USC, Notre Dame, and Tennessee. Only being beaten out by Ohio St and Penn St.

Difference here is when you account for other factors. Such as out of those aforementioned teams... Penn St, Ohio St, USC, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, and Alabama beat them out in Bowl games.

Nebraska and Oklahoma beat them out in Conference titles.

Texas, Nebraska, USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Ohio St, and Alabama beat them out in weeks ranked #1.

And many of Michigans national titles are suspect. GRANTED, most of that is due to the ricidulous amount of sharing that occurred back then. But of those 11 claimed titles... 5 occurred where other teams had better records (6 if you include 1997 where Nebraska went 13-0 and Michigan went 12-0) and were also awarded national title honors. And only 3 since the start of the AP era (1947,1948,1997).


All I am saying is that playing a lot of cupcakes can dilute many other factors such as wins and even bowl games for that matter.


I think I have attacked Michigan a lot on this board, but realistically, I don't dislike Michigan. I only believe that the hype that constantly surrounds the team is unfounded, overblown, and thusly overrated.

When you're looking at the number of years that the game has been played, it's impressive.
When you look at shared titles with the AP and whoever else, I give each team 1/2 of a national championship. So in 97, it's Michigan and Nebraska with 1/2 each.

Texas and Ohio State don't play cupcakes. Neither does Michigan. Take a look at the last 40 years.

 

[Olyduck]

One thing you can count on is tejas will underachieve.

Nobody underachieves like tejas. NOBODY

USC would beg to differ

 

[Kaplony]

My big thing is that Michigan has played 231 teams that are NOT in the FBS division.

Trying to compare where teams are in the football pecking order now compared to where they were when the games were played is a fool's errand. Yale used to be a national football power but because they and the rest of the Ivy League de-emphasized athletics years ago they are now an afterthought in FCS. Washington & Lee was a founding member of the Southern Conference with the likes of Alabama, Clemson, and UNC but are now DIII.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I don't think either are "over rated". The problem here is that we're arguing on a different scale. We're talking about two programs that do often get ranked high in pre-season rankings. There's not a lot of room to go up from #4 ranked, so if Texas finishes #5 in the country, they'd fall into the "over rated" category. Meanwhile, teams that don't often get ranked in these pre-season rankings, often find themselves in the top 25 "under ranked". It's just a different scale. In the last 25 years Texas has finished top 10, 7 times. Top 25, 16 times. Michigan has 6, top 10 finishes and 18, top 25 finishes in the last 25 years. So all I'm saying here is that some context needs to be put here. And those stats include a significant down-period for both teams.

Fair point.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Trying to compare where teams are in the football pecking order now compared to where they were when the games were played is a fool's errand. Yale used to be a national football power but because they and the rest of the Ivy League de-emphasized athletics years ago they are now an afterthought in FCS. Washington & Lee was a founding member of the Southern Conference with the likes of Alabama, Clemson, and UNC but are now DIII.

Sure, absolutely there is a difficulty to even try to quantify such things. I believe I prefaced my original comment by stating that these are based on where the teams currently sit as opposed to how things were. But there is also something to be said is where these programs HAVE ended up through the years. If these teams moved to P5 conferences, then it would have just as much emboldened their record as this hurts it.

 

[Deep Creek]

Texas and Ohio State don't play cupcakes.

Texas plays my Miners quite frequently!

 

[Ojb81]

Tough to say... in the past, I have called Michigan the most overrated blue blood program. So I compared some overall records.

Michigan has played 1,008 current Power 5 opponents over the course of their history. This includes Notre Dame, but not BYU or Army or any other independent. That is 75% of their opponents are P5.

Texas has played 909 current Power 5 opponents over their history. That is 69% of their opponents are P5.

Some caveats are that these obviously don't include the likes of Rice, SMU, or Houston due to them not being currently P5 schools. Also Michigan has played 231 Non-FBS games whereas Texas has only played 136.

Tough call.

Wow, those are some interesting stats. Where'd you find that info?

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Wow, those are some interesting stats. Where'd you find that info?

winsipedia

 

[outofyourmind]

Texas plays my Miners quite frequently!

Hell, Oklahoma even came to El Paso once or twice.
Why in tFuck we do that shit is beyond me.

 

[Deep Creek]

Hell, Oklahoma even came to El Paso once or twice.
Why in tFuck we do that shit is beyond me.

Who knows? But we do appreciate the gesture and the money.

But not the ass whipping that comes with it.