Michigan is off to a well-documented 1-2 start this season, a struggle out of the gate that was not altogether unexpected. The Wolverines lost a ton of veteran players from last year's team, many of them four-year starters, and with a new coaching staff and offensive system implemented this year, some bumps in the road were to be expected.
What are the chances these struggles will extend throughout this season, and maybe even beyond?
This is the winningest program in college football history, after all. One that routinely brings in top recruits from around the country and plays in New Year's Day bowl games. Michigan and Ohio State have long been the Big Ten's Big Two, with everyone else grabbing leftovers.
But ever since Jim Tressel arrived at OSU, it's been more like a Big One, and even though Michigan has still been very good, it doesn't feel the same.
I have a feeling that the Michigan football program could be headed for a time of relative mediocrity similar to one it went through in the mid-1990s, when it sandwiched Rose Bowl trips around trips to the Hall of Fame, Holiday, Alamo, and Outback bowls. (Note I said relative mediocrity: that reads roughly like our holiday travel log, which given the history of our program would qualify as relative success.) Here's how it might happen:
1. The state of Michigan is undergoing some really tough times. Michigan's heavy reliance on the automotive industry has put its citizens in a precarious position, as GM and Ford hemorrhage market share and jobs. As such, Michigan has had the highest unemployment of any state in the nation.
Michigan's population growth has also stagnated. Between 2000 and 2006, at a time in which the U.S. population grew 6%, and the Midwest's population grew 2.8%, Michigan's grew just 1.6%. This is the seventh-slowest growth among states. Ohio and Pennsylvania, where UM pulls many of its top out-of-state recruits from, grew just 1.1% (fourth-slowest) and 1.3% (fifth-slowest).
Other states feeding Big Ten football programs grew at much quicker paces: Illinois (3.3%), Wisconsin (3.6%), Indiana (3.8%), and Minnesota (5%).
Michigan will probably always get coveted recruits from around the country, kids who are seduced by the colors, the fight song, and the chance to play before 106,000 people sitting on their hands. That stuff doesn't dry up unless there's gross incompetence running things.
But any college football program worth its salt still counts on home state boys as its heart and soul, and Michigan is no exception. If the state's population continues to dwindle by comparison to other states, with families of talented athletes moving elsewhere (likely south) in search of the blue collar jobs that have dried up; if the state's tax base erodes to the point where youth athletics programs are not as well-funded; if leaner economic times in general dissuade recruits from far-flung locations to matriculate at Ann Arbor; then these demographic considerations could have significant negative implications for Michigan's football success.
2. The Spread. Have I shared my emotions about this offense in this blog? If you didn't know, in a nutshell, I don't like it.
But it's hard to argue that the Spread hasn't revolutionized college football. It has leveled the playing field for traditional doormats, who have a more difficult time attracting NFL-level talent to run conventional offenses. It has boosted programs like Florida to another level, although it could be argued that you and I could figure out a way to turn Tim Tebow and Percy Harvin into 35 points per game.
In Rich Rodriguez, Michigan has one of the best Spread coaches out there, if not the best. You've got to figure that once Rodriguez has players better-suited for this offense, they'll be formidable.
But we've seen this before in college football, haven't we? Quirky offense turns the sport on its head, gives rise to a nation full of copycats, then loses favor when it becomes familiar to defensive coordinators and coaches adjust their rosters to address it?
Remember the run-and-shoot? That was fun while it lasted, gave us Andre Ware and David Klingler. The Wishbone option lasted longer and was used by more premier programs, but after Miami started dominating Oklahoma in the late 1980s, the option fell out of favor.
Of course, that's just when Don Morton brought the Veer to Wisconsin. I'm not suggesting that Rodriguez's tenure in Ann Arbor will resemble Morton's in Madison. But if I'm right, and the Spread has peaked, his time at the helm could produce less-than-desirable results. The Spread might have begun its downward slide because:
-So many teams run it now that it's not a novelty to prepare for. I believe that we play more Spread teams than conventional offenses this season. Familiarity breeds success.
-The international brotherhood of defensive coordinators has committed to sharing notes and stopping this thing.
-It's hard to see NFL teams ever adopting the Spread outside of a limited form. The Wishbone could never be run at the pro level because the defensive players are too big, strong, and nasty -- they'd hit the quarterback hard whenever given the chance. Similarly, the Spread leaves itself open to big hits on runs, hits that come far less frequently in college.
That last point could be the ultimate downfall for the Spread at big time programs. As I noted when Terrelle Pryor chose Ohio State over Michigan, he made a wise choice. How have Spread quarterbacks fared in the NFL? Think the 49ers wish they would have taken Aaron Rodgers instead of Alex Smith?
If elite high school recruits don't think a program's offense is the best chance for them to develop their professional skills, they will not commit to that program. Simple as that.
Do I think Michigan will ever fall to the depths of Indiana? Or even to that of 21st century Michigan State, missing bowl games with regularity?
Not at all. Too much history, too much brand recognition, too much commitment, too much money to let that happen. Plus, the only other Big Ten schools capable of joining Ohio State in a Big Two are Penn State, maybe Illinois.
But it would be nice if the Wolverines came back to the pack for awhile. Winning in Ann Arbor on Saturday would be a step in that direction.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Could Michigan falter?
Posted by Coach Scott Tappa at 6:36 AM
Labels: don morton
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Michigan is the new Nebraska. A powerhouse school falling on hard times. Michigan should be careful what they wish for.
That's a really good comparison. The whole "we don't need a Michigan Man" thing is parallel to Nebraska pushing out Frank Solich, who in retrospect was doing just fine, thank you. The whole Michigan Man thing smacks of arrogance, kind of like North Carolina's basketball clique, but if I were a UM fan, I'd want Les Miles as coach, not RichRod.
Good post Tappa. I like the research you put into this....
What ended up being the reason that Miles did not come to Michigan? Did he want more money than they would offer, or did he end up liking his current situation too much to leave?
I think Rodriguez is a good coach (WVU is struggling without him right now) and there's so much money associated with that program and its boosters, that I can't see it ever failing for too long. Although, I do think a program like Nebraska will have an easier road back to the national stage due to it being the only show in the state as far as D-I football is concerned.
I think you are overstating Michigan's future success being directly tied to the state's financial troubles. Michigan is second only to ND as far as historic national recruiting is concerned. I am not worried about the recruiting outlook.
Whether the spread is suited for the NFL does not mean it can't have a long run in the college ranks. You compare it to the run and shoot, but I think it may be more like the option, which has had over a 40 year run. It is sad to know that the next Tom Brady will not be coming out of Ann Arbor, but the notion that the next Tim Tebow might wear Maize and Blue is fair compensation.
Good luck on Saturday!
Go Blue
Thanks for the comment Frank, your points are well-taken. I'll disagree with you on the option part - you can count the number of teams that still run true wishbones on one hand.
While UM does recruit very well nationally, don't understate the importance of in-state kids. Not only do they fill important roles on the roster, but they keep interest in the program alive in their small towns.
As for your other points, you might be right -- everything I wrote was a possibility, but by no means a probability. Hell, if state incomes meant so much, why is the SEC so tough?
"...and the chance to play before 106,000 people sitting on their hands."
Did no one else find this funny?
You're on a roll Taps. Good blogging lately.
Post a Comment