Phil Steel ranks CFB teams by "most experienced"

[Sgt Brutus]

What bowl did Aurburn make in 2012? And which did they make in 2013?

Look at their records before 2012. Now look at Michigans trend of losing more games each year.

Still failing to see what you're trying to argue?

 

[Sgt Brutus]

Who said anything about "magic?" Harbaugh has a track record of turning around programs that had until that point underperformed (see his stint with the Niners). And it helps if the team has talent, which Michigan has.

So they will work for, Harbaugh will make damn sure, and at this point it is more likely than not there will be improvement. How much? We will have to wait and see.

NFL =/= CFB success and vise versa

I agree he will improve them

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

What bowl did they make?

None, but (as I've said) that doesn't necessarily mean the roster is bad. Put it this way, If Hoke took over the same OSU team for the same duration as Urban with the same talent, do you think he'd be winning national titles?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Look at their records before 2012. Now look at Michigans trend of losing more games each year.

Still failing to see what you're trying to argue?

A trend that was due to coaching, not talent. As already mentioned, Michigan landed two top 10 recruiting classes under Hoke, one top 5.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

None, but (as I've said) that doesn't necessarily mean the roster is bad. Put it this way, If Hoke took over the same OSU team for the same duration as Urban with the same talent, do you think he'd be winning national titles?

Hypotheticals are pretty useless. Who knows? Urban is a betrer coach and recruiter then Hoke thats all I can say

If the roster was halfway decent, they could have made a bowl game in the weak B1G in which shitty Illinois made it to one.

I think there is talent on Michigans roster, dont get me wrong but until they prove it they are still a bad team. You guys claim talent on the roster well lets see it in action because its all talk right now

 

[haydav49]

Phil Steele

"For more than 8 years I have published an “Experience Chart” in my National College Football Preview. The old version of this chart just took into account the overall experience from the 2 deep for each squad. Several years ago I revised the Experience Chart and created a New and Improved version. The updated chart uses 20% of the experience grade from the old chart, 20% from the % of lettermen returning, 20% from the percent of tackles returning, 20% from the percent of yards returning and 20% from the career starts of the offensive line."



1 Michigan 91.0 14 9 4 9 4 3 0 1
2 Navy 89.0 14 6 5 11 3 5 0 0
3 Utah St 87.0 12 9 7 6 3 6 0 1
4 Air Force 85.0 9 5 13 11 0 6 0 0
5 S Alabama 83.0 13 5 6 11 3 3 0 3
6 West Virginia 82.0 9 8 10 7 3 5 0 2
7 Georgia Southern 81.0 12 7 8 7 1 5 1 3
8 Utah 80.0 11 5 6 12 4 4 1 1
8 Akron 80.0 13 7 5 8 4 1 0 6
10 Troy 79.0 11 5 9 8 2 6 0 3
11 Illinois 78.0 8 6 10 10 4 3 0 3
11 Cincinnati 78.0 10 6 8 9 3 5 1 2
11 Middle Tenn 78.0 11 6 10 8 0 3 1 5
11 Massachusetts 78.0 14 5 6 6 2 6 0 5
15 Colorado St 77.0 12 6 6 4 4 10 0 2
15 New Mexico 77.0 7 8 11 6 4 5 0 3
17 Hawaii 76.0 10 5 8 9 4 4 0 4
17 TCU 76.0 14 6 4 4 3 9 1 3
19 Southern Miss 76.0 7 6 8 11 7 3 0 2
19 Texas St 76.0 14 5 6 4 2 8 0 5
21 East Carolina 75.0 11 3 8 8 3 9 0 2
22 Iowa St 74.0 10 2 8 12 4 5 0 3
22 California 74.0 12 3 10 4 0 12 0 3
22 Georgia Tech 74.0 12 3 7 8 3 7 0 4
25 Memphis 74.0 9 4 8 9 5 7 0 2
26 Michigan St 73.0 12 3 6 9 3 7 1 3
26 Boise St 73.0 10 5 9 5 3 8 0 4
26 Idaho 73.0 9 3 9 10 4 6 0 3
29 BYU 72.0 9 5 7 8 6 5 0 4
29 Army 72.0 8 4 9 6 5 12 0 0
29 Ball St 72.0 10 6 9 5 1 8 2 3
29 WKU 72.0 12 4 7 7 2 6 1 5
33 Kansas 71.0 11 3 7 8 3 8 1 3
33 San Diego St 71.0 8 5 9 7 4 8 1 2
33 N Illinois 71.0 11 1 9 9 2 8 0 4
36 Minnesota 70.0 11 4 8 3 2 13 1 2
36 Northwestern 70.0 12 5 5 6 4 5 1 6
36 Mississippi 70.0 10 5 9 4 2 9 1 4
36 Mississippi St 70.0 6 5 15 7 1 3 0 7
36 San Jose St 70.0 9 5 7 9 5 3 1 5
36 Buffalo 70.0 11 5 5 8 5 3 1 6
36 Ohio 70.0 10 4 8 4 4 11 0 3
43 Arkansas St 70.0 7 5 10 8 4 6 1 3
44 Iowa 69.0 9 7 5 7 8 0 0 8
44 Baylor 69.0 10 2 9 7 3 9 0 4
44 Miami, Fl 69.0 6 6 9 5 7 9 0 2
44 Toledo 69.0 10 5 8 6 3 5 1 6
44 Bowling Green 69.0 10 3 6 8 6 7 0 4
44 New Mexico St 69.0 7 5 7 8 8 6 0 3
44 North Texas 69.0 10 4 7 9 4 3 1 6
44 Georgia St 69.0 10 3 9 7 2 8 1 4
44 Charlotte 69.0 5 4 13 9 4 5 0 4
53 Nebraska 68.0 8 6 11 4 2 6 1 6
53 UTEP 68.0 9 4 8 8 5 3 0 7
53 UNLV 68.0 7 7 8 7 6 2 1 6
56 Arizona 67.0 6 5 11 7 5 4 0 6
56 Houston 67.0 9 6 9 3 3 7 1 6
58 Louisiana Tech 67.0 13 3 6 4 2 9 1 6
59 Arizona St 66.0 11 4 6 4 4 9 1 5
60 Virginia 66.0 10 1 8 11 3 4 1 6
61 Marshall 66.0 10 3 7 5 5 9 0 5
62 Louisiana 66.0 8 4 10 5 4 7 0 6
63 Connecticut 66.0 7 2 7 10 8 8 0 2
64 UTSA 66.0 12 3 3 6 7 7 0 6
65 Missouri 65.0 9 4 7 4 6 9 0 5
65 Maryland 65.0 10 4 6 5 5 8 1 5
65 Duke 65.0 12 2 8 3 2 10 0 7
65 Cent Michigan 65.0 10 3 5 5 7 10 0 4
65 FIU 65.0 9 3 8 6 5 7 0 6
65 Appalachian St 65.0 7 6 7 6 8 3 0 7
71 Auburn 64.0 8 4 9 8 3 4 2 6
71 Georgia 64.0 9 4 6 6 6 7 1 5
71 Rice 64.0 10 2 6 7 6 7 0 6
71 USF 64.0 5 6 9 5 8 6 0 5
75 Colorado 63.0 5 3 12 7 5 7 0 5
75 Oklahoma St 63.0 6 3 10 6 6 9 0 4
75 Kansas St 63.0 11 2 5 7 5 7 1 6
75 Virginia Tech 63.0 8 2 6 9 8 6 0 5
75 Washington St 63.0 8 3 5 7 9 8 0 4
75 SMU 63.0 7 5 11 4 3 6 1 7
75 E Michigan 63.0 9 3 7 9 4 4 2 6
82 Notre Dame 62.0 7 4 11 2 3 12 1 4
82 Pittsburgh 62.0 6 1 12 8 4 8 0 5
82 Temple 62.0 10 3 7 9 2 3 3 7
82 Kentucky 62.0 10 3 6 5 5 8 1 6
82 ULM 62.0 12 2 7 4 3 6 0 10
87 USC 61.0 8 2 7 7 7 7 0 6
87 Alabama 61.0 9 3 7 7 5 4 1 8
87 Tennessee 61.0 7 4 7 5 7 9 1 4
87 Louisville 61.0 6 1 11 8 5 8 0 5
91 Purdue 60.0 7 2 8 8 5 9 2 3
91 Texas Tech 60.0 11 3 5 4 4 9 2 6
93 Syracuse 59.0 9 4 5 5 6 7 2 6
93 Oregon 59.0 10 2 5 4 6 11 1 5
93 LSU 59.0 5 2 9 8 7 9 1 3
93 Arkansas 59.0 6 2 10 7 6 6 0 7
93 Vanderbilt 59.0 6 3 7 5 9 10 0 4
93 Kent St 59.0 5 3 12 6 5 5 0 8
99 Ohio St 58.0 8 2 6 4 7 13 1 3
99 UCLA 58.0 5 1 11 11 4 5 2 5
99 Oregon St 58.0 8 3 9 5 4 5 1 9
99 Tulsa 58.0 9 1 8 6 4 8 1 7
103 Oklahoma 57.0 9 1 8 6 5 5 0 10
103 Rutgers 57.0 7 2 10 6 4 6 1 8
103 South Carolina 57.0 8 2 9 6 4 5 1 9
103 W Michigan 57.0 9 1 4 10 8 3 1 8
103 Nevada 57.0 8 3 5 9 5 6 4 4
108 Boston College 56.0 7 5 6 3 8 6 1 8
108 Washington 56.0 7 4 6 3 9 7 0 8
108 North Carolina 56.0 7 3 8 6 5 6 2 7
108 FAU 56.0 8 2 7 4 6 10 1 6
112 Texas A&M 55.0 5 4 7 5 9 7 1 6
112 Stanford 55.0 10 4 4 4 7 2 1 12
114 Wisconsin 54.0 9 4 7 2 4 6 2 10
115 Penn St 53.0 6 3 7 4 9 6 0 9
115 Texas 53.0 10 1 5 5 5 8 2 8
115 Wyoming 53.0 9 0 8 5 5 6 0 11
115 Old Dominion 53.0 6 3 8 6 5 7 3 6
119 Clemson 52.0 7 1 10 4 5 6 0 11
120 Indiana 51.0 6 2 6 5 8 10 2 5
120 Fresno St 51.0 11 1 4 5 4 7 3 9
122 NC State 49.0 8 1 6 3 7 9 1 9
123 Tulane 48.0 3 2 9 4 10 8 0 8
123 UCF 48.0 5 4 6 8 6 3 5 7
125 Miami, Oh 46.0 7 2 8 5 3 5 4 10
126 Florida St 44.0 4 3 7 6 6 7 5 6
127 Florida 41.0 6 0 8 4 3 12 5 6
128 Wake Forest 37.0 4 0 7 6 7 7 4 9

He also notes:
"Last season Michigan was near the bottom of this chart at #122. The young Wolverines saw their record drop for a 3rd straight year but now find themselves on top of this years article."

Finally found something that scum ranks first? Too bad those are the same guys that went 5-7 last year!

 

[ellupo]

What if you have good players that played bad?

Until they play good, they are bad players. Its pretty simple.

 

[ellupo]

None, but (as I've said) that doesn't necessarily mean the roster is bad. Put it this way, If Hoke took over the same OSU team for the same duration as Urban with the same talent, do you think he'd be winning national titles?

No, he never has won a national title. Urban did before tOSU. He is a proven coach that can win the big one.

 

[7Samurai13]

A trend that was due to coaching, not talent. As already mentioned, Michigan landed two top 10 recruiting classes under Hoke, one top 5.

A trend that you believe is due to coaching. It can't be proven otherwise until they actually show it on the field.

 

[7Samurai13]

@MAIZEandBLUE09 i am saying they are bad players. Your hypothesis needs testing and until proof is given otherwise, they are bad players regardless of the coaching.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

@MAIZEandBLUE09 i am saying they are bad players. Your hypothesis needs testing and until proof is given otherwise, they are bad players regardless of the coaching.

Yep, this is it

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

@MAIZEandBLUE09 i am saying they are bad players. Your hypothesis needs testing and until proof is given otherwise, they are bad players regardless of the coaching.

I liked your post because you're right, I can't prove my opinion. But that's kind of the fun in posting on message boards like this. I think that we have good players that just need a coach to coach them and you don't. Ultimately, one or the other will be proven true because there's no possible way to truly prove your opinion of a future team. For all we know, Ohio State could suck this year. There just happens to be more evidence to suggest they won't.

 

[7Samurai13]

I liked your post because you're right, I can't prove my opinion. But that's kind of the fun in posting on message boards like this. I think that we have good players that just need a coach to coach them and you don't. Ultimately, one or the other will be proven true because there's no possible way to truly prove your opinion of a future team. For all we know, Ohio State could suck this year. There just happens to be more evidence to suggest they won't.

I just wanted to make sure that we understood what I wrote. There was some ambiguity in there and didn't want it misconstrued as me saying these are great players that fell under poor leadership. They may have potential, but nothing anyone here has seen, shows that they will reach it.

 

[Across The Field]

I liked your post because you're right, I can't prove my opinion. But that's kind of the fun in posting on message boards like this. I think that we have good players that just need a coach to coach them and you don't. Ultimately, one or the other will be proven true because there's no possible way to truly prove your opinion of a future team. For all we know, Ohio State could suck this year. There just happens to be more evidence to suggest they won't.

I know Ohio State will not suck this year. It is a fact. It will be shown in the regular season and I will come back in December and show that they did not suck.

 

[Across The Field]

I also found an interesting caveat -

"To formulate a point system, I awarded 3 points for every senior starter (2.5 for every additional senior in the two deep) 2 points for every junior starter (1.5 for every additional junior in the two deep) 1 point for a sophomore starter (0.5 for every additional soph in the two deep) then subtracted 1 point for every frosh starter and .5 for every frosh in the two deep."

No wonder. Teams like Ohio State, Alabama, Florida State, USC, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Georgia, LSU, etc. recruit extremely well and have a lot of underclassmen starters who, oftentimes, leave before they're even seniors.

The shit teams like michigan have done little to develop their young talent so they largely stick around for 4 years because they don't have a choice. There's a reason there are very few elite teams in the top half of these rankings. I see TCU, Baylor and Sparty in the top half, and basically every other elite team in the bottom half.

These rankings mean don't mean dick.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I know Ohio State will not suck this year. It is a fact. It will be shown in the regular season and I will come back in December and show that they did not suck.

And I can say the same of Michigan. I don't think Michigan will be great, but I don't think we'll see a team anything like what we saw last year.

 

[Across The Field]

And I can say the same of Michigan. I don't think Michigan will be great, but I don't think we'll see a team anything like what we saw last year.

Me saying I know Ohio State won't suck is far more based in fact than you saying michigan won't suck. Based on pretty much everything, there's a very good chance michigan will suck.

 

[Codaxx]

Yes and I can hit the lottery. As I have said before: Some do some don't, odds are better if you are returning good players.

That is obvious. I am merely pting out it is a much more important stat in the areas that require a lot of development. Starts is a pretty good predictor of OL success, though OSU bucked that trend last year. Playing together as a unit goes along way. I believe the football study hall guys were developing something on that. Ranking the importance of experience at each position. Likely goes back to the old saying of the closer the player is to the snap the more time they need to develop

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Me saying I know Ohio State won't suck is far more based in fact than you saying michigan won't suck. Based on pretty much everything, there's a very good chance michigan will suck.

I guess it matters on what your definition of "suck" is. I think 6-6 or worse is suck. 7-9 wins is average and 10+ is good to great.

I think it's very unlikely that Michigan loses 6+ games.

 

[Across The Field]

I guess it matters on what your definition of "suck" is. I think 6-6 or worse is suck. 7-9 wins is average and 10+ is good to great.

I think it's very unlikely that Michigan loses 6+ games.

I think record is independent of sucking. If you only beat the bottom feeders on your schedule and get spanked by the good ones, you suck. michigan has a pretty split schedule -

OSU
MSU
Utah
BYU
Minnesota
PSU

Oregon State
UNLV
Maryland
NW
Rutgers
Indiana

If you beat the bottom 6 and lose to the top 6, yes you suck. If you can get a win against Minnesota or BYU, I guess you don't suck. If you beat 2/6, I'd call that a really good season.

By the way things are going, I'd say you're favorites against the bottom 6 and dogs vs. the top 6.