Football: Fiutak confused

CFN's Tuesday question is "The most overrated team going into 2005 is..."

First of all, that isn't a question. Second of all, Pete Fiutak says it's Michigan. But this is how he starts his article:

"From what I've read in early copies of several preseason publications and from various outside sources I've been talking to, you'd think the 2005 Michigan Wolverines were on the verge of winning the Super Bowl and not just the Rose Bowl."

I would like to see these publications. Lindy's pegged us #3, but other than that most previews seem to have us in the 7-10 range, certainly not Super Bowl striking distance. CFN has a nasty habit of just makin' crap up and then beating the hell out of the strawman they've constructed, and this is a fine example. The lifted quote above would be accurate if the team in question was USC. The nonstop media celebration over the Trojans started a little over two years ago when they waxed an excellent Iowa team and it hasn't stopped since, mostly because USC's given no indication that anyone should do so. But the quote is totally fictional as applies to Michigan.

Not one single preview even has Michigan playing in the Rose Bowl, let alone winning it. So what the hell is Fiutak talking about? Lord knows. Then he goes on to say Michigan's basically guaranteed to win eight games and that winning two of three "question marks"--MSU, OSU, Iowa--"isn't asking for much," capping his incisive thoughts with this:

"Can Michigan really be overrated and finish 10-1? Absolutely."

This is another one of those things that is so obviously retarded that I can't even come up with any arguments against it because it makes as much sense as arguing cheese smells like red. No. No, it doesn't, and if you think it does, it is because you're a loon.

I'll try anyway. Going undefeated in college football is hard. Somewhere between zero and three teams in real conferences accomplish the feat yearly. The next step down from "undefeated" is "10-1", which will probably be good for a top five national ranking and definitely top ten. No one who finishes 10-1 in the regular season can possibly be significantly overrated, not even unanimous #1 USC. And YOU think that Michigan is already 8-0 to start the season and should easily win two of three question marks and that losing the third to finish 10-1 would be an indication of being overrated? So basically, you think that anything short of a NC game appearance is disappointment for Michigan and you think that other people are overrating Michigan?

So Fiutak has A) a delusional view of nationwide Michigan perception, B) a delusional view of his own Michigan perception, and C) no idea what the word "overrated" means. Also, D) a silly last name. CFN's signal to noise ratio, already low, has taken a blow with this self-contradictory bollocks.

Update: Fiutak responds, mgoblog responds to the response. I report, you decide.