P.J. Fleck >>> Jim Harbaugh

[7Samurai13]

"OK P5 program"

You mean like Clemson was?

From 1992 to 2011, just ONE single season finishing higher than 21, and only 7 times total in the Top 25 over 20 years.

That is almost twice as many years NOT in the rankings at all, than in the Top 21-25.


Hardly a powerhouse much less a blue blood.


derp

Now do all of that for Minnesota and let us know what you come up with.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

How do you keep your confidence up being the dumbest person in the room constantly and consistently?

Maybe you should go give the Michigan players some of that retarded chimp confidence.

I think you are confusing intelligence with confidence. UM is in the same boat, to a lesser extent. So are teams like Penn State and Notre Dame.

All those teams have been national champs in the past and have storied histories, but all of them are located in areas with very minimal elite talent in state. All need to rely on recruiting nationally for majority of their recruits. What has changed over the past 20 years — where those elite recruits come from.

The Midwest used to be a talent rich recruiting footprint — but as the population shifted south, so did most of the elite recruits.

So instead of recruiting elite athletes who were brought up on your school, you are now having to try and pull recruits brought up on SEC, ACC, Big 12 etc.

It isn’t rocket science and you can turn a blind eye and pretend the landscape of football is the same as when Nebraska was a national power, but it couldn’t be more different. Your rivals are now Iowa and Wisconsin, not Texas and Oklahoma. Your conference footprint is now the Midwest, not the Southwest.

But hey — if you think Nebraska with 0 five star recruits (OSU has SIXTEEN) and 50 less blue chip recruits is going to take over Ohio State’s spot on top of the conference — I’d say you win for the dumbest in the room. I take that back — Fred saying Minnesota is going to win a national title in the next 3-4 years takes that throne

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Now do all of that for Minnesota and let us know what you come up with.

Minnesota won the B1G 50 years ago. Minnesota makes Michigan look relevant in the B1G

 

[Wamu]

Gotta side against you on this one. The only ranking that matters is the ranking at the end of the season. Sorry man.

That's fine. Then you're also siding against every sports outlet that mentions throughout the year that teams play (and beat) ranked teams. A teams W/L record vs. ranked teams is determined by the opponents ranking at the time of the game. Not where they finish the season.

Example. LSU beat a then ranked Texas A & M team early in the season. They didn't finish the season ranked. But that win still counts for the Tigers as beating a ranked opponent.

 

[7Samurai13]

Minnesota won the B1G 50 years ago. Minnesota makes Michigan look relevant in the B1G

Hold up, i need Fred to show us his research on how Minnesota is similar to Clemson.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Now do all of that for Minnesota and let us know what you come up with.

Went right over your head, eh?


Clemson was an almost NEVER WAS, for it's entire history. Along came Dabo and now look at them.


Outside of 78-82, Clemson had NEVER cracked the Top 8 until Dabo came along.


One 5 year period of time does not a blue blood make. And even that 5 year period wasn't all that glorious, two seasons they didn't make the rankings, another they only finished 8th, another only 6th. Clemson was basically a ONE HIT WONDER.


Until Dabo came along.


Why can't Minnesota, with the right coach, do the same as Clemson? UMn's history was FAR MORE GLORIOUS than Clemson's before Dabo came along. Clemson had just 6 Top 10 finishes, and only ONE Top 5 before Dabo came along.

Minnesota? UMn had more Natl Titles than Clemson had Top 10 finishes.

Top rankings from best down compared, from 1934-2011

UMn - #1 vs Clem #1
UMn - #1 vs Clem #6
UMn - #1 vs Clem #8
Umn - #1 vs Clem #9
UMn - #1 vs Clem #9
UMn - #1 vs Clem #10
UMn - #5 vs Clem #11
UMn - #5 vs Clem #11
UMn - #6 vs Clem #11
UMn - #8 vs Clem #12
UMn - #10 vs Clem #12
UMn - #10 vs Clem #12
UMn - #12 vs Clem #12
UMn - #16 vs Clem #16
UMn - #18 vs Clem #17
UMn - #19 vs Clem #18
UMn - #20 vs Clem #19

So Clemson got into the rankings a little over a half a dozen more times than Minnesota, but no one in their right mind would trade what UMn did for what Clemson did, not if they are sane?

Remember, NOTHING after 2011 being compared, the only thing Clemson had over UMn was quantity, NOT quality, and some of that quantity coming more recently.


But most people looked at the ACC and thought, WEAK ASS CREAMPUFF filled conference. Clemson was barely thought of by anyone.

Until Dabo showed up. And he didn't need Top Ten recruiting classes to win his 2 titles so far.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

That's fine. Then you're also siding against every sports outlet that mentions throughout the year that teams play (and beat) ranked teams. A teams W/L record vs. ranked teams is determined by the opponents ranking at the time of the game. Not where they finish the season.

Example. LSU beat a then ranked Texas A & M team early in the season. They didn't finish the season ranked. But that win still counts for the Tigers as beating a ranked opponent.

Sure, they do that DURING the season. But no one with a brain in their head cares if someone beat an overrated team that fell out of the rankings.



When they talk about teams from the past, they only use EOS rankings when talking about who they played and who they beat.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Just in case you Michigan fans missed it.

 

[7Samurai13]

Went right over your head, eh?


Clemson was an almost NEVER WAS, for it's entire history. Along came Dabo and now look at them.


Outside of 78-82, Clemson had NEVER cracked the Top 8 until Dabo came along.


One 5 year period of time does not a blue blood make. And even that 5 year period wasn't all that glorious, two seasons they didn't make the rankings, another they only finished 8th, another only 6th. Clemson was basically a ONE HIT WONDER.


Until Dabo came along.


Why can't Minnesota, with the right coach, do the same as Clemson? UMn's history was FAR MORE GLORIOUS than Clemson's before Dabo came along. Clemson had just 6 Top 10 finishes, and only ONE Top 5 before Dabo came along.

Minnesota? UMn had more Natl Titles than Clemson had Top 10 finishes.

Top rankings from best down compared, from 1934-2011

UMn - #1 vs Clem #1
UMn - #1 vs Clem #6
UMn - #1 vs Clem #8
Umn - #1 vs Clem #9
UMn - #1 vs Clem #9
UMn - #1 vs Clem #10
UMn - #5 vs Clem #11
UMn - #5 vs Clem #11
UMn - #6 vs Clem #11
UMn - #8 vs Clem #12
UMn - #10 vs Clem #12
UMn - #10 vs Clem #12
UMn - #12 vs Clem #12
UMn - #16 vs Clem #16
UMn - #18 vs Clem #17
UMn - #19 vs Clem #18
UMn - #20 vs Clem #19

So Clemson got into the rankings a little over a half a dozen more times than Minnesota, but no one in their right mind would trade what UMn did for what Clemson did, not if they are sane?

Remember, NOTHING after 2011 being compared, the only thing Clemson had over UMn was quantity, NOT quality, and some of that quantity coming more recently.


But most people looked at the ACC and thought, WEAK ASS CREAMPUFF filled conference. Clemson was barely thought of by anyone.

Until Dabo showed up. And he didn't need Top Ten recruiting classes to win his 2 titles so far.

Didn’t go over my head at all. Do the same stats for Minnesota so we can compare the two.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Didn’t go over my head at all. Do the same stats for Minnesota so we can compare the two.

Yes, it's going over your head. I'm making a very valid point, about how COACHING is the key. Not trying to diss Clemson. Recruiting can't be done on it's own. And Recruits don't want to play for half ass coaches. Some can get some recruits, they go for the name or the history, or the coach pulls the wool over their eyes, like Harbaugh does.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Didn’t go over my head at all. Do the same stats for Minnesota so we can compare the two.

Mich St fan? Another fan doesn't know they wouldn't have half what they have without Minnesota.

 

[Wamu]

Sure, they do that DURING the season. But no one with a brain in their head cares if someone beat an overrated team that fell out of the rankings.



When they talk about teams from the past, they only use EOS rankings when talking about who they played and who they beat.

Then I guess every sports outlet in the country is brainless. An article from si.com (12-1-19) Three observations: LSU proves it's deserving of No. 1 ranking in college football playoff

A small piece of the article- The Tigers became the first team in the modern football era to have wins over five top 10 teams in the same regular season

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Then I guess every sports outlet in the country is brainless. An article from si.com (12-1-19) Three observations: LSU proves it's deserving of No. 1 ranking in college football playoff

A small piece of the article- The Tigers became the first team in the modern football era to have wins over five top 10 teams in the same regular season

An article from 2019 about the 2019 season. The EOS rankings aren't even out yet you moron. You can't write an article if you don't use the rankings at the time of the game when writing an article about a season before the EOS rankings for that season have even come out, DUH.

Moron.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Then I guess every sports outlet in the country is brainless. An article from si.com (12-1-19) Three observations: LSU proves it's deserving of No. 1 ranking in college football playoff

A small piece of the article- The Tigers became the first team in the modern football era to have wins over five top 10 teams in the same regular season

How old are you? 16? 19? 22? lol

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I think you are confusing intelligence with confidence. UM is in the same boat, to a lesser extent. So are teams like Penn State and Notre Dame.

All those teams have been national champs in the past and have storied histories, but all of them are located in areas with very minimal elite talent in state. All need to rely on recruiting nationally for majority of their recruits. What has changed over the past 20 years — where those elite recruits come from.

The Midwest used to be a talent rich recruiting footprint — but as the population shifted south, so did most of the elite recruits.

So instead of recruiting elite athletes who were brought up on your school, you are now having to try and pull recruits brought up on SEC, ACC, Big 12 etc.

It isn’t rocket science and you can turn a blind eye and pretend the landscape of football is the same as when Nebraska was a national power, but it couldn’t be more different. Your rivals are now Iowa and Wisconsin, not Texas and Oklahoma. Your conference footprint is now the Midwest, not the Southwest.

But hey — if you think Nebraska with 0 five star recruits (OSU has SIXTEEN) and 50 less blue chip recruits is going to take over Ohio State’s spot on top of the conference — I’d say you win for the dumbest in the room. I take that back — Fred saying Minnesota is going to win a national title in the next 3-4 years takes that throne

I am certainly not confusing confidence and intelligence. I know this because your statement is wrong and has been demonstrated wrong multiple times. However, if you want to have an actual conversation about it, I would recommend answering my initial questions from the previous pages. I will happily make you look more stupid than you have already done to yourself.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

but no one in their right mind would trade what UMn did for what Clemson did, not if they are sane?

Not counting the current landscape? Yeah, I suppose Minnesota has an argument, BUT if you were asking would I trade Minnesotas history with what I think Clemsons will be/become... I will absolutely take Clemson over Minnesota.

But that's me.. Of course, no one would expect a fan of the team to do the same. I wouldn't trade Nebraskas history for what I think Clemson may be doing or becoming.

 

[Wamu]

An article from 2019 about the 2019 season. The EOS rankings aren't even out yet you moron. You can't write an article if you don't use the rankings at the time of the game when writing an article about a season before the EOS rankings for that season have even come out, DUH.

Moron.

Yep an article about the 2019 season written after the season ended that mentioned the top 10 teams the Tigers beat during the regular season is invalid. And the rankings of the teams LSU beat where mentioned in the article. That's why the article said they became the 1st team in the modern era to beat 5 top 10 teams.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

Yep an article about the 2019 season written after the season ended that mentioned the top 10 teams the Tigers beat during the regular season is invalid. And the rankings of the teams LSU beat where mentioned in the article. That's why the article said they became the 1st team in the modern era to beat 5 top 10 teams.

Dude, the End of Season rankings are not out yet. What part of that do you not understand???

 

[7Samurai13]

Yes, it's going over your head. I'm making a very valid point, about how COACHING is the key. Not trying to diss Clemson. Recruiting can't be done on it's own. And Recruits don't want to play for half ass coaches. Some can get some recruits, they go for the name or the history, or the coach pulls the wool over their eyes, like Harbaugh does.

So you absolutely refuse to show us what Minnesota has done for the 26 years before Fleck because you are chicken shit. Good to know.

 

[7Samurai13]

Mich St fan? Another fan doesn't know they wouldn't have half what they have without Minnesota.

Dude, the only reason you are here right now is because of the coach you got from a Michigan school.